Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ross and Cromarty (Dornie Bridge, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.

For Borough of Leeds (South-East Division) in the room of Sir Henry Herman Slesser, K.C. (Lord Justice of Appeal).—[Mr. Kennedy.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. SIMMONS: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reverse the present practice regarding tuberculosis cases, whereby ex-service men who are knocked off work by the pensions doctor are not granted treatment allowances until they enter an institution, by ordering that the payment of such allowances should date from the day of relinquishing work under the advice of a pensions doctor?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): My hon. Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. In any case where the Ministry's medical adviser considers it desirable, in the interests of treatment which has been recommended, that a man should abstain from work pending admission to an institution, it has always been the practice to pay treatment allowances in the interval, subject to the usual conditions.

Mr. SIMMONS: As this practice does prevail in many cases, will the Minister give his attention to any such cases that I can bring to his notice?

Mr. ROBERTS: Certainly. If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any cases where the procedure I have indicated has not been carried out, I will attend to them.

MEDICAL OFFICERS (SESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT).

Dr. MORGAN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions the total number of medical practitioners now employed by the Ministry on a sessional basis, and How many of these are specialists?

Mr. ROBERTS: The number of medical officers employed by the Ministry on a sessional basis was, during the latest period for which information is available, on an average 363, of whom approximately two-thirds were specialists.

FINAL AWARDS.

Dr. MORGAN: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the total number of final awards made in the half year ending 30th June last; the total number of pensioners now receiving final award pensions; the number of such cases who have appealed for re-assessment in the last two years; and whether he will consider application for review of such cases are now submitted to him?

Mr. ROBERTS: The total number of final awards made in the six months ending 30th June last was 24,677. The number of pensioners now receiving final awards of life pension is about 390,000. During the past two years, 7,529 appeals have been made to the Assessment Appeal Tribunals. The arrangements which I was enabled to make five years ago for the correction of serious errors of final award are still in operation.

APPEALS.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is considering the suggestion of the British Legion that there should be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in all cases in which a pension is refused; and, if so, how soon a decision may be expected?

Mr. ROBERTS: This point is under my consideration along with other proposals which, as I informed my hon. Friend on the 9th instant, had been submitted to me by the British Legion. I cannot at the moment go beyond the terms of the reply which I then gave him, and of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. BAKER: Will the Minister be able to give a considered reply before the House rises for the Recess?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that at this moment I cannot give that undertaking.

Mr. SIMMONS: Would the Minister be prepared to accept representations from other bodies of ex-service men besides the British Legion?

Mr. ROBERTS: Certainly. As I said in answer to a similar question last week, I shall be prepared to consider any representations that may be made on this matter.

REJECTED CLAIMS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will present a return to the House analysing the cases in which claims to pensions have been rejected during each of the last five years, so as to show the nature of the disability from which the applicant was suffering and which was held not to be due to service?

Mr. ROBERTS: The information necessary for compiling, a return of the detailed character suggested is, I regret, not available.

MENTAL HOSPITALS (NURSES).

Mr. AYLES: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of unqualified nurses at present employed in the mental hospitals under his control: and whether he will take an early opportunity to see that only certificated male nurses are employed in State institutions?

Mr. ROBERTS: The male nursing staff employed in institutions dealing with cases of mental and severe nervous disorder is required, to the utmost extent possible, to be qualified by experience in the handling of such cases, and 25 out of the 62 male nurses employed in nursing certified cases have the additional qualification of a certificate. With regard to the second part of the question, I
understand that the Board of Control have not found it practicable or desirable to advise in public mental hospitals the standard suggested by my hon. Friend.

APPEAL TRIBUNALS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the reorganisation of the constitution of the appeal tribunals; and, if so, whether he can state if there is any intention of affording representatives other than doctors who represent the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. BEN SMITH (Treasurer of the Household): The members of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals are appointed not by the Minister of Pensions but by the Lord Chancellor, or, in Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session. The medical members of the tribunals are not in any sense representatives of the Minister of Pensions. The continuing reduction during recent years and at the present time of the work of the tribunals involves a corresponding reduction from time to time in the number of their members. Otherwise there is no intention of reorganising their constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, has been rendered ineffective as a safeguard to partially incapacitated workmen by certain county court decisions; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a short amending Bill?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I am well aware that the provision which my hon. Friend has in mind has under present conditions proved of very little benefit in many cases, but I am afraid I am not in a position to give any pledge of immediate legislation. All I can say at present is that the matter is receiving-very careful and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the great hardship and injustice which falls upon injured workmen because of the ineffectiveness of Section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation
Act, and does he not think that a short amending Bill should be introduced to remove such injustices?

Mr. CLYNES: With the leave of the House, I will repeat what I indicated in my answer, namely, that immediate legislation is not always possible even if an injustice exists.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend give any hope that at a not far distant date such a Bill will be introduced?

Mr. CLYNES: I shall hope.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the making of an Order extending the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts dealing with industrial diseases to the disease of cancer of the bladder as affecting workers in aniline factories?

Mr. CLYNES: An Order can only be made in respect of a disease which is due to the nature of the employment, and I am advised that it has not yet been definitely established that cancer of the bladder is caused by employment in aniline works. The matter is at present the subject of a research by the London Cancer Hospital and I will consider whether any steps can be taken by my Department to facilitate this investigation.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to revise and amend the existing Workmen's Compensation Acts; and whether he will extend the Regulations to other unclassified diseases arising from industrial processes?

Mr. CLYNES: As regards the first part of this question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply just given to the hon. Member for the Pontefract Division (Mr. T. Smith).
As regards the latter part, I shall be glad to consider any proposal for scheduling under the Act any specific industrial disease which has not yet been included. I am advised, however, that I should have no power under the Act to make an Order extending its provisions generally to diseases due to industrial processes.

Mr. MORLEY: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to cases of chronic fribosis of the lungs
contracted through inhaling coal dust whilst working in ships' bunkers; and if he will consider the desirability of placing this complaint on the schedule of diseases coming within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. CLYNES: No such cases have as yet been brought to my notice, but if any cases have come to the knowledge of the hon. Member and he will furnish me with particulars of them, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEETING, CAXTON HALL (DISTURBANCE).

Mr. DAY: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now received the Report from the Commissioner of Police upon the incidents which happened with regard to the disturbances at the meeting of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection at Caxton Hall on the 20th June; whether he has considered this Report; and can he now make a statement upon it?

Mr. BOYCE: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations in regard to the disturbances at the meeting of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, at Caxton Hall, on 20th June, and the alleged refusal of the police officers present to turn out the organised disturbers of the meeting unless the entire hall was emptied; whether any instructions were given to the police officers in question by his Department; and will he consider taking some steps whereby pubic meetings called for lawful purposes shall receive the necessary police protection to carry out the purpose for which such meetings are convened?

Mr. CLYNES: I have now received a Report from the Commissioner of Police regarding the meeting in question. The duty of police who may be present at public meetings is to prevent so far as possible any breach of the peace, and no special instructions were required or given on this occasion. It must be recognised that the task of the officer in charge in such cases is often a difficult one, as precipitate action is just as Likely to provoke complaint as undue delay. The Commissioner of Police is satisfied, however, after considering a large number of statements made by persons who were present,
that the officer in charge of the detachments sent to this meeting committed an error of judgment in not acting sooner. The Commissioner has taken appropriate action with respect to the officer concerned, and has communicated fully with the union named in the question.

Mr. DAY: Has any communication been made to the principals of the colleges from which these students came?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir; the colleges have been communicated with.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make known to the police his desire that the utmost rigour of the law may be applied to these unruly students?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

DISCIPLINARY CASES.

Mr. DAY: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether full transcript shorthand notes are taken of evidence given against police officers when they are tried before the disciplinary board?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir.

Captain MARGESSON (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the disciplinary action taken by the Chief Constable of Warwickshire in the case of certain police officers stationed at Rugby, and whether there is any appeal to him from the decision of the Chief Constable and whether he proposes to take any action with regard thereto.

Mr. CLYNES: I am aware that certain members of the Warwickshire Police Force stationed at Rugby have recently been reduced in rank on account of offences of neglect of duty of which they have been found guilty or have admitted. The final decision in such a case is that of the Chief Constable, who under statute is the disciplinary authority. The Chief Constable of Warwickshire has, however, in this particular case kept His Majesty's Inspector fully informed throughout with regard to all developments. I know that full consideration has been given to the rank and previous service of the officers concerned, and I am satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances, there is no occasion for any intervention on my part.

Captain MARGESSON: Am I to understand that there is no right of appeal to-any person or tribunal for these officers?

Mr. CLYNES: Under statute, I understand, there is not.

HOUSING ACCOMMODATION.

Major GLYN: 16.
asked the Home Secretary in how many instances do county and borough authorities provide suitable housing accommodation for married and unmarried constables; whether in the reports of His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary this method is considered more satisfactory than that for renting houses and quarters; and whether, seeing that this policy has been proved, where tried, to effect economies, and has been a boon to the men concerned, as well as a means of relieving to some extent existing housing shortage throughout the country, he will take steps to encourage this practice?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not in a position to give any exact statistics, but it is safe to say that the great majority of married and unmarried members of the county police forces are provided with houses or quarters by the police authority. As regards the borough forces, the position is different and there is not the same occasion for providing houses specifically for police occupation. Attention was drawn to the matter in one of the recent annual reports of His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, which are issued to all police authorities. I have no reason to think that police authorities in general are not fully alive to the advantages to be secured by the provision of accommodation for members of their forces in suitable cases, and I am always ready favourably to consider any reasonable scheme for the purpose.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPAETMENT (APPOINTMENT).

Captain HALL: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement of Chief Constable Wensley, New Scotland Yard; and, if so, whether it is proposed to fill it from the ranks of serving police officers?

Mr. CLYNES: The answer is yes, to both parts of the question.

ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE, STAFFORDSHIRE (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet approved of the appointment of the Assistant Chief Constable of Staffordshire, Commander Legge: if his attention has been drawn to the fact that he has no previous police experience and that his age exceeds the statutory limit; and whether any applications were called for from the officers of the police forces?

Mr. CLYNES: The matter is under my consideration. I am aware that Commander Legge has had no previous police experience and that by reason of his age the appointment is subject to my approval. The vacancy was advertised, and I am informed that 50 applications were received.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Lord Byng had no previous police experience, and consider how well he has done?

Mr. CLYNES: The two cases are very different, but the matter is under my consideration.

Mr. ADAMSON: Has my right hon. Friend gone through the qualifications of the other applicants for this post, and can he say why the age was raised on behalf of the application of the second son of a Staffordshire Earl?

Mr. CLYNES: The case has only quite recently come before my notice, and, as I said, it is being considered. I have not yet exhausted all the material evidence.

Mr. ADAMSON: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have many more questions on the Paper.

TEAFFIC CONTROL (HOURS OF DUTY).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 41.
asked the Home Secretary if he has received representations as to the length of time that the police on traffic control in the Metropolitan area are kept on duty; and if he proposes to recommend increases in that branch?

Mr. CLYNES: No such representations have been made to the Commissioner, and no increase in the number of police employed on the existing traffic points is contemplated at present.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the Home Secretary satisfied with the conditions of employment of these men?

Mr. CLYNES: I would not say that I am.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONEKS (CONVEYANCE).

Mr. DAY: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that prisoners, handcuffed and chained together, are frequently transported between Lewes Prison and Brighton by railway, either for their trial or during their trial, in the? late morning and afternoon; and will he consider altering these arrangements so that these prisoners are transported for this short distance by road conveyance?

Mr. CLYNES: The prisoners in question are those who are being conveyed from Portsmouth Prison to Lewes Assizes. When this journey is made by rail, it involves a change at Brighton Station. I am considering whether in future, when any considerable number of prisoners have to be conveyed, arrangements can be made to take them by motor conveyances directly from Portsmouth to Lewes.

Mr. DAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this mediaeval system of transport, which prevails all over the country, is not only degrading but should be abolished altogether?

Mr. CLYNES: I am considering the whole question of the conveyance of prisoners, but am not in a position to make a statement.

Major COLFOX: Is it not the commission of the offence which is degrading, and not the mode of conveyance?

Mr. LANG: 28.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that prisoners conveyed to Victoria Station, Manchester, for transport elsewhere are marched across the station chained together; and will he consider the advisability of abolishing the use of chains?

Mr. CLYNES: When a number of prisoners have to be conveyed together it is impossible for the prison authorities to secure their safe custody without some method of linking the members of the party together, but every effort is always made to avoid exposing prisoners to
public humiliation, and as it is found that at the rail-way station mentioned the transference of prisoners to the train cannot be effected without attracting a good deal of public attention the Prison Commissioners are having inquiry made as to the possibility of avoiding railway journeys for the larger parties of prisoners by a greater use of motor conveyances.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this is the utmost rigor of the law recommended by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle)?

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES BILL,

Mr. MANDER: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government will consider the advisability of including in the Factories Bill powers to set up in factories works councils representing employers and employed?

Mr. CLYNES: The establishment of works councils in factories for the joint consideration of matters falling within the scope of the Factory Acts, such as the prevention of accidents, organisation of welfare arrangements and the like, is in my opinion a very valuable means of improving conditions of work, and I am in full sympathy with it; but it seems to me, in general, that such councils are likely to do the best work when established by mutual consent. I may add that there is already power, so far as safety matters are concerned, to deal with any exceptional cases. So far as the question is intended to cover other matter not within my jurisdiction, I cannot express any opinion.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the Government do not propose to give any statutory powers for the setting up of works councils, but propose to leave the whole thing to voluntary action?

Mr. CLYNES: The effect of my answer was to indicate that it is not advisable to give statutory powers.

Viscountess ASTOR: Was it not the setting up of these works councils that drove Italy into Fascism? [Interruption.] I think it was; they told me.

Mr. MANDER: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to include
a Clause in the Factories Bill giving to workers the right of partnership in the conduct of industry and a share in its profits.

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. Such matters would be entirely outside the scope of the Factory Acts.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of extending the scope of the Factories Bill so as to give the workers of this country these elementary human rights?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNDISCOVERED MURDERERS.

Major GLYN: 15.
asked the Home Secretary in how many instances during the last three years have verdicts of murder been returned by coroners without any subsequent arrest and trial of any individual taking place; and in how many of such cases have the criminal investigation department of Scotland Yard been concerned in the inquiries to trace the murderer?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not in a position to give the information desired, and to collect it specially, in the form suggested, would involve an expenditure of time and labour among police forces and elsewhere that could not be justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — M. TROTSKY.

Mr. HARRIS: 18.
asked the Home Secretary what were the terms of the request of M. Trotsky when he asked to be allowed to land in this country; whether it was in order to receive medical treatment; if he was prepared to give an undertaking not to interfere or take any part in politics or engage in any form of propaganda; whether he has received any representations on the subject from the Russian Government; and if he can state what are the terms of the Home Office Regulations that govern the admission of political refugees?

Mr. BROCKWAY: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the application of M. Trotsky to visit this country is on medical grounds, he is prepared to reconsider his decision not to accede to the application, provided M. Trotsky gives a definite assurance that he will not engage in any political activities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether any correspondence has taken place -between His Majesty's Government and M. Trotsky relative to the latter's application to take asylum in this country; and whether he will lay the papers?

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 31.
asked the Home Secretary on what grounds His Majesty's Government have decided to deny the right of asylum to Lev Trotsky, a political refugee from Soviet Russia?

Mr. CLYNES: With the leave of the House, I shall make a full statement. M. Trotsky based his application on his desire to undergo medical treatment, to follow scientific studies, and to superintend the publication of his life in English. Assurances were offered on his behalf that, if admitted, he would not interfere in the domestic affairs of this country, or take part in any public meetings, or seek to make himself prominent in any way. No communication on the subject of M. Trotsky's application has been received from the Soviet Government. The decision of His Majesty's Government to refuse facilities for his visit was taken after the fullest consideration of all the circumstances. It can be justified without impugning in any way the good faith of those who have offered assurances on M. Trotsky's behalf. In the view of the Government, if M. Trotsky were to come here, persons of mischievous intention would unquestionably seek to exploit his presence for their own ends, and if, in consequence, he became a source of grave embarrassment, the Government could have no certainty of being able to secure his departure. In regard to what is called "the right of asylum," this country has the right to grant asylum to any person whom it thinks fit to admit as a political refugee. On the other hand, no alien has the right to claim admission to this country if it would be contrary to the interests of this country to receive him. There are no special regulations on the subject.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who purported to answer No. 30, whether he will now answer it, and whether he will lay the whole of this correspondence upon the Table of the House. I want to ask him
whether, if he admits that this country is a democratic country, he does not think it fitting that people should have a right to see the correspondence which has been conducted by the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On a point of Order. I put a specific question on the Paper asking if any correspondence had passed and if that correspondence can be laid. May I ask that question now?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may ask that question, but not the last part.

Mr. CLYNES: There has been very little correspondence on the matter. I will consider the point put by the hon. Member.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Trotsky also stated that he desired to study Socialism in practice under a Socialist Government?

Mr. CLYNES: If he wants to study Socialism the right of asylum need not be extended.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When the delicate negotiations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are completed, will it then be possible for the Government to reconsider the exclusion of M. Trotsky?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should live notice of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I put it this way, whether the refusal of the Government to allow M. Trotsky to come here was due in any way to the negotiations going on with Russia?

Mr. CLYNES: All these cases are subject to the circumstances and the merits of the case. If the circumstances alter, the merits of the case can then be considered.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: There are 167 questions.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: On a point of Order. I have a question on the Paper with regard to this point. I should like to be allowed to put one question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentle man has given a very full answer.

Mr. BROCKWAY: May I give notice that I want to raise the matter on the Adjournment on a convenient day?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNION CONGRESS (RUSSIAN DELEGATE).

Commander BELLAIRS: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether the special delegate proposed to be sent from Moscow to attend the Trade Union Congress will be allowed to land?

Mr. CLYNES: I will await an application from any such delegate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAKERIES (NIGHT WORK).

Mr. MACLEAN: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to secure the abolition of night work in bakeries?

Mr. CLYNES: As I stated in reply to a similar question yesterday by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), this question will be considered by the Government in connection with the Factories Bill, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

STREET ACCIDENTS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of street accidents due to the speeding up of motor traffic; whether his Department has under consideration any plan or regulation which has for its object the securing of greater safety on the roads to pedestrians; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of such plan or regulation?

Mr. NAYLOR: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the large number of fatal accidents in which motor cycles are involved and the dangerous way in which these vehicles are driven, he proposes to take any steps to strengthen the regulations affecting their use on the road?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply to these questions.
The Royal Commission on Transport have recently had under consideration the subject of dangerous driving and of accidents in which motor vehicles are involved. A report from the Commission is expected very shortly. As regards the action which will be taken on the Royal Commission's Report, I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on 16th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), of which I am sending them copies.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLOURED ALIEN SEAMEN.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON, Junr.: 23.
asked the Home Secretary the aggregate annual number of registration certificates granted to coloured alien seamen during each of the years 1925, 1926 and 1927?

Mr. CLYNES: The figures are as follow: 6,159 in 1925, 1,476 in 1926, 666 in 1927.

Commander WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to increase the number or reduce it still further?

Mr. CLYNES: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL ACT.

Sir BASIL PETO: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the decision of the Government not to proceed with the tax on the totalisator takings of one-half per cent., it is the intention of the Government to amend the Racecourse Betting Act, which provides that bookmakers may be charged five times the ordinary fee of admission to racecourses?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. I am inclined to think that the initiation of any legislation to amend the Racecourse Betting Control Act is among the matters which can best be left to private enterprise.

Sir B. PETO: Is the decision the reward of the Government to the bookmakers for their support?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDER (SENTENCE, WEST LONDON).

Mr. LANG: 26.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the
case of Jimmy Himent, convicted at the West London Police Court of theft, and ordered to be kept in an industrial school until he attains the age of 16; and, seeing that the delinquent is a child of seven and this means a nine years' sentence for a first offence, will he consider the case with a view to release?

Mr. CLYNES: I have made the fullest inquiry with regard to this boy, who is just over eight years of age, and have come to the conclusion that in his own interests I ought not to interfere. I would remind my hon. Friend that the object in a case of this kind is not to punish but to secure the welfare of the child. This boy has gone to a school at the seaside reserved for little boys under 12, where he will receive the care and education he needs. The question how long he remains at the school will depend on the progress he makes, and it may be possible for the managers to release him before he reaches the age of 16. If my hon. Friend would like further details I shall be happy to give them to him.

Mr. LANG: Is it within the province of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to see that the parents of the child are notified of its present whereabouts?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I think that may be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICTED PERSONS (INSANITY).

Mr. LANG: 27.
asked the Home Secretary if any statistics are available as to the number of male and female prisoners certified as insane after their reception into prison as convicted persons during the last three years?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir; and the statistics available for the three years 1926 to 1928 inclusive, which include persons received after conviction, or as debtor prisoners or surety prisoners, and extend to local, convict and preventive detention prisons and to Borstal institutions, are:

Men
…
…
…
295


Women
…
…
…
43

Mr. LANG: In view of the size of the figures, will my right hon. Friend cause inquiries to be made as to whether these prisoners may not be medically examined before their conviction?

Mr. CLYNES: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a further question on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVERTISEMENTS.

Mr. TOOLE: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if he will introduce: legislation making it illegal to use the names of individuals in public advertisements without their consent?

Mr. CLYNES: I have every sympathy with the object which my hop. Friend has in view, but I have no reason to think that legislation is necessary. I would refer my hon. Friend to a case which was reported in the "Times" of the 16th instant.

Mr. TOOLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only as recently as last week the Prime Minister was subjected to the misuse of his name in a public advertisement?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I am aware of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING ASSESSMENT APPEALS, CORNWALL.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the difficulty of appellants against the new assessments under the new Valuation Act who reside in country areas, such as Cornwall, far distant from the county town, he will issue a Circular to members of the Committee of Quarter Sessions urging the desirability of sitting to hear appeals in convenient centres and thus obviate the existing hardships upon those who cannot afford the time and heavy expense at present necessary to secure a hearing?

Mr. CLYNES: The matter is one for the Committee concerned, and I do not consider it desirable the: I should address a Circular to members. I doubt whether that would be an appropriate method. The matter can be brought to their notice in other ways.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman advise us in what way the chairman or any of his colleagues can help us in this matter, as the hardships are very widely felt in the scattered districts of Cornwall?

Mr. CLYNES: I am advised that it would not be either serviceable or helpful to send the Circular suggested, but the chairman of, the Committee might he approached.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET TRADING (CHILDREN).

Mr. EDE: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has had any Report on the extent to which the by-laws made by local education authorities with respect to street trading by young persons are enforced; if so, what was the date of the Report; and, if not, will he consider, in view of the importance of these by-laws in safeguarding the health and morals of young persons, calling for such Report?

Mr. CLYNES: Inquiry as to the working of the provisions of the Education Act relating to the employment of children, including street trading, was made in 1924 and the result was summarised in the Second Report of the Children's Branch of the Home Office published in that year. Some local authorities—notably the London County Council—publish each year a statement of the action taken by them. The question of making further inquiries has recently been under consideration. I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of securing the passage through this House of the Bill dealing with this question which was brought in by Lord Astor in another place?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I will consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES (TRANSFER).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to permit the transfer from one bench to another of existing magistrates who may for different reasons change their residence?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir James Melville): I have been asked to reply. No legislation is necessary to permit the transfer from one bench to another of existing magistrates who may change their residence. The Lord Chancellor is always willing to sanction such
transfers when they are recommended by his Advisory Committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DEAF AND DUMB CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that approximately 50 per cent. of the boys and girls who leave deaf and dumb schools have no work to go to and remain unemployed for shorter or longer periods; and whether his Department concern themselves with finding employment for such boys and girls?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): The placing of deaf and dumb children is, I think, more successful than my hon. Friend supposes. He will find some information on this subject on page 164 of the Report of the Board's Chief Medical Officer, 1927. The Board are not themselves responsible for finding employment for these children. The usual facilities provided by Local Education Authorities exercising Choice of Employment powers, and by the Employment Exchanges, are, of course, available for pupils leaving deaf schools; but in the case of the large majority of these children employment is found through the head teachers or through voluntary agencies in direct consultation with employers.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 50 per cent. of the children leaving deaf and dumb schools have no work available for them and that this matter is left in the hands of voluntary associations who have not sufficient funds to enable them to carry on their work; and will he consider the advisability of having a representative inquiry into the whole of this procedure?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am perfectly ready to inquire further into the matter, but I think my hon. Friend rather exaggerates the gravity of the situation.

UNSUITABLE SCHOOL BUILDINGS (CARMARTHENSHIRE).

Mr. HOPKIN: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of schools which have been condemned in Carmarthenshire; the date at which they were condemned; and the names of these schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: On the 24th February, 1925, the Board sent to the Carmarthenshire Authority a list of 17 schools the premises of which appeared to be unsuitable for continued recognition. Since that date four of the schools have been removed from the list. I am sending my hon. Friend the names of the schools.

Mr. HOPKIN: How does that compare with other counties in Wales?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that it is still the worst.

WOMEN TEACHERS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the number of women teachers who break down in health every year between the ages of 56 and 60 is increasing; and if he will consider the introduction of a scheme whereby women teachers can be granted optional retirement to begin at the age of 55?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The figures in my possession do not suggest that there is any substantial increase in the number of women teachers who break down in health between the ages of 55 and 60. Provision for such cases is already made in the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, and I cannot undertake to initiate legislation to provide for optional retirement on pension at an age less than 60.

FILMS.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee to inquire into the use of the cinema as a method of education in our schools, as is the practice in many Continental countries?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The use of the cinema as a method of education in the schools has been considered on two occasions by the Imperial Education Conference, and was the subject of a report by a committee, of which Lord Gorell was Chairman, in 1924. I am, however, disposed to think that there is a case for a further examination of the question, and I am considering what steps can be taken with that object in view.

SCHOOL LEAVING AGE AND MAINTENANCE GRANTS (GOVERNMENT DECISION).

Mr. ALBERY: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can now give any further information concerning the intention of the Government with regard to the raising of the school leaving age to 15 years?

Mr. SIMON: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the committee on the raising of the school-leaving age will report in time for the local education authorities to take the resulting decisions into consideration in framing their three-year programmes?

Mr. SORENSEN: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education the estimated cost of the raising of the elementary school-leaving age to 15, including the payment of maintenance grants?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to explain the broad lines of the educational policy he will he able to propose in the immediate future?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education the annual cost of extending the school-leaving age to 15?

Mr. SHEPHERD: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now able to make a definite announcement as to the policy of the Government with regard to the raising of the school-leaving age with maintenance grants; and, if not, whether he will do so before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. COVE: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now able to make a statement on the raising of the school age?

Mr. HORRABIN: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to the probable date of the raising of the school-leaving age and as to the amount of the maintenance grant?

Mr. MALCOLM MacDONALD: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that local authorities are now engaged in preparing their education programmes for the next three years, he is yet in a position
to state whether the Government intends to raise the school-leaving age; and, if the Government has such an intention, will he announce the date on which that Measure will take effect?

Dr. HASTINGS: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can inform the House when a decision will be reached as to the raising of the school-leaving age?

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is now in a position to- announce when the Government; will introduce legislation to raise the school-leaving age to 15 years, with maintenance allowances for the parents of such children?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: His Majesty's Government have carefully considered the most suitable date for the raising of the school age to 15. After weighing all the circumstances, they have decided to prepare the necessary legislation to raise the school age to 15 as from 1st April, 1931. I am at once asking representatives of the local education authorities and professional bodies to meet me with a view to consultation and co-operation. Consideration is being given to the form and amount of maintenance allowances to be granted, but I can make no announcement at present.

Mr. COVE: May I ask whether the legislation which will be necessary to give effect to this decision will be introduced in this Session of Parliament?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot answer that question.

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to provide for the raising of the school age to 15 years with maintenance optional or compulsory?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have already said that I cannot yet say what the form and the amount of the maintenance grant will be.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that the statement he has just made will involve not only a Bill, which will be discussed in this House, but certain immediate administrative measures which will affect not only local authorities but voluntary bodies as well, he will make
a statement before the Houses rises as to what administrative measures he proposes to take in such a way as the House will have an opportunity to discuss them? Secondly, will he lay before the House the Report of the Committee on which the Government have taken their present decision?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Government have not taken their decision on the He-port of any Committee. They have made their decision themselves. With regard to the other questions, I shall not be able to lay Cabinet plans before the House rises for the Adjournment, as I shall not have completed my discussions with the local education authorities.

Lord E. PERCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consult, not only with the local education authorities, but with the voluntary bodies as well, without whose co-operation this policy cannot be set up; and, secondly, are we to understand that, whereas the House was told by the Lord Privy Seal that a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the whole question, the Government have taken their decision before the Committee have reported?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I did not know that it was necessary that a Cabinet should take advice from other people as to its decisions. With regard to the other part of the Noble Lord's question, I can assure him that I am perfectly aware, as anyone must be, of all the difficulties that surround this subject, and that I shall consult all the parties that are interested in making preparations for the change.

Lord E. PERCY: I simply want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Lord Privy Seal was misleading the House when he said that a Committee had been appointed?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: We have been inquiring in various ways in order to make up our minds, and we have made up our minds to our satisfaction.

Viscountess ASTOR: Sixteen next time!

Mr. SMITHERS: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education what increase there would be in the number of children attending elementary schools by raising the school age to 16; what
amount of extra school buildings would be necessary; how many more teachers would be required; and what would be the total cost to the State and to local education authorities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that the information desired by the hon. Member could not be obtained without an expenditure of time and labour which would be out of all proportion to its practical value at the present moment.

Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the announcement just made by the Minister for Education, may I put the question in another form by altering the figure "16" to "15"?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: That is not the question on the Paper.

Mr. EDE: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities exercising elementary education powers there are in Engand and Wales; and how many make maintenance grants to pupils in attendance at public elementary schools, stating separately, if possible, the number who confine such maintenance grants to children exempt from further compulsory attendance at school?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Of the 317 Local Education Authorities in England and Wales which exercise elementary education powers, 33 made maintenance grants to pupils in attendance at public elementary schools during the year 1927–28. Of these authorities 29 confined the grants to children exempt from further compulsory attendance at school.

PLAYING GROUNDS (HOLIDAYS).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that all elementary school playing grounds are closed immediately school hours end and also during holidays; and whether, in view of the dangers of the street and the urgent need of playgrounds in all the poorer districts, he will authorise the keeping open of the school grounds?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: In some areas, including London, arrangements are made to keep the school playgrounds open when the schools are not in session and the Board aid arrangements of this kind. This is a matter which is within the discretion
of the school authorities, and I need hardly add that any schemes for providing children with better opportunities for play have my cordial sympathy.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. EDE: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Education what was the number of secondary school places per 1,000 of the population in England and Wales; whether, seeing that the proportion of such secondary school places to population deemed appropriate by the Departmental Committee which investigated the subject was 20 per 1,000, he will say what steps he proposes to take to secure that in every area not less than the proportion recommended by the Departmental Committee shall be provided?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The number of pupils in grant-aided secondary schools in England and Wales on 1st October, 1928, was 10 per 1,000 of the population in July, 1928, as estimated by the Registrar-General. If my hon. Friend will ask me a question later in the Session, I may be in a position to make some statement with regard to the development of various types of post-primary education.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS

Mr. BEAUMONT: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the recommendations of the Hadow Report, he will introduce legislation to enable local education authorities to expend money on the adaptation of existing voluntary schools as central schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The position of His Majesty's Government in relation to the voluntary schools was defined in a reply which I gave on 4th July to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will circulate to the proper authorities at the universities periodical reviews of the various branches of industry and the professions, in order that undergraduates may be enabled to make plans for their future at a suitable time?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that this is a matter which lies outside my province.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (VACANT PLACES).

Mr. THURTLE: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any information in his Department as to the number of vacant places there are for scholars in elementary schools in London, calculated on existing standards at the present time; and if he has similar figures for the rest of England and Wales?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The recognised accommodation of public elementary schools maintained by the London County Council exceeded the average number of children on the register in 1927–28 by 56,872, the corresponding figure for the rest of England and Wales being 1,395,643. My hon. Friend will, of course, realise that any conclusions drawn from these figures are entirely misleading unless the character and distribution of the surplus accommodation are taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEMICAL WARFARE.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the rejection by the Preparatory Disarmament Commission of the proposal to interdict the dropping of bombs from aircraft, work on chemical warfare will still continue to be explored by our defence organisations?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I would point out that although the Preparatory Disarmament Commission was unable to accept the proposal for the total abolition of bombing from the air, it did agree to accept a clause forbidding, subject to reciprocity, the use of poison and other gases. In these circumstances, I have nothing to add to my reply to a previous question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 9th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS AND BUILDINGS (EXPORTATION).

Captain CAZALET: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider introducing legislation with the object of securing, for the British Museum or other public place of record, copies of any historical documents of national importance which are about to be exported abroad?

The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member has been noted for consideration.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if anyone wishes to study the history of the House of Commons during the latter part of the 18th Century, he has to go to California, as nearly all the relevant papers are there at the present time?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I may answer that question, not only as Prime Minister, but as a Trustee of the British Museum, we have never found any difficulty in getting these copies if they are asked for, but the whole matter is under consideration, as I have stated in my reply to the question.

Captain CAZALET: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the sale of the Bradenstoke tithe barn in Wiltshire and its removal to the United States of America; and whether he contemplates any legislation which will give the Commissioner of Works under the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, additional powers so as to ensure that similar removals of buildings cannot take place in the future?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have learned with much regret that this building has been demolished, but I understand that it is not the fact that it is being removed to America. I understand that it has been for a long time in a state of decay and that the purchasers have pulled it down to re-use some of the old materials at another ancient building in Wales. I will ask my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to consider whether any additional legislative powers are needed to safeguard such old buildings.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (RELATIONSHIP).

Mr. FREEMAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a statement by M. Briand on a proposed United States of Europe; whether such a suggestion would have the approval of His Majesty's Government; and if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): I have been asked to reply. The attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been drawn to certain statements in the Press purporting to give M. Briand's views on the proposal, but he has had no communication on the subject from the French Government. The latter parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make an announcement as to the composition and terms of reference of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into matters affecting the Civil Service?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated in reply to a similar question on the 4th July, no time is being lost in dealing with this subject. I may add that as recently as Tuesday last my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received representations on the question of the terms of reference of the Commission from the staff side of the National Whitley Council.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the composition of this Royal Commission can be published before we rise at the end of the month?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is a competent woman on the Committee, and a woman not blinded by party politics?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be much obliged if both those questions were addressed to the Treasury, which is the Department which will give the advice as to the composition of the Royal Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 50.
asked the Prime Minister seeing that he cannot publish the correspondence without their consent, whether he is consulting the Dominions Governments with regard to the publication of their replies to His Majesty's Government on the subject of the resumption of relations with Russia?

Mr. DALTON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made by the Prime Minister on 11th July and 15th July, in reply to questions put by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham West (Sir A. Chamberlain). It would be premature at this stage to consult His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions as regards laying papers.

Captain CROOKSHANK: is the hon. Gentleman aware that when these replies were given I put a specific question to the Prime Minister, asking whether the Dominions had consented to the negotiations being opened, or whether His Majesty's Government are now acting on their own or on behalf of the whole Empire?

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Member give an assurance that these replies or the decisions of the Dominion Governments will be made known to this House before decisive action is taken with regard to the resumption of diplomatic relations?

Mr. DALTON: The lion. Member had better read the statement of the Prime Minister, to which I have referred him in my answer.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have not only read that statement, but I was here when it was made, and no answer was given to the question.

Mr. DALTON: In the latter part of my answer the hon. and gallant Member will find that in our view, it is premature at the moment to approach the Dominion Governments on this subject. I have nothing to add to that answer.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMP-SON: What is there exactly to conceal?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (POLITICAL ARTICLES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the rule enforced on Members of the late Government against writing political articles is to be continued by the present Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that there will be no deterioration in the observance of the tradition in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAVEL ASSOCIATION (GOVERNMENT SUPPORT).

Commander BELLAIRS: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the large revenue drawn by France from foreign tourists; whether he is aware of the work of the French National Tourist Office in advertising and increasing the availability of the tourist routes by methods such as financing the modernisation of hotels; and whether the Government will consider extending the functions of the Ministry of Transport in some of these directions?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government is fully alive to the importance of encouraging tourists to visit this country both from the point of view of the revenue accruing from an increased number of visitors from abroad and of the good effect of an interchange of visits on international relations. There has recently been formed under the auspices of the late Government, the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, a non-trading, non-political body, whose objects are to increase the number of visitors to Great Britain and Ireland and to stimulate the demand for British goods and services. His Majesty's Government are continuing to give the Association their support and my hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, has been appointed chairman of the Executive Committee. His Department will co-operate with the Association in doing everything possible to develop this important industry.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask if this Association is of real value?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any announcement to make about the 1928 programme of naval construction?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 10th July [OFFICIAL REPORT, column 855, Vol. 229].

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it is quite clear
that before any important decision of policy reversing the Naval programme of the present year is taken, Parliament will be informed and will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

The PRIME MINISTER: As this is a matter of business, perhaps the House will allow me to answer Certainly not. The Government will take just the ordinary powers of a Government in that respect.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I understand it, the present position is this, that the programme has already been declared. What I am asking the Prime Minister is, should he depart from that, will he take that decision at a time when Parliament is sitting, and will he give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

The PRIME MINISTER: My reply to that is this, that the Government will just exercise its judgment, with the full knowledge of its responsibility to this House. Beyond that, it is impossible at the moment to go.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we, then, to understand that a most grave and important decision of this kind is being withheld until Parliament has separated for nearly three months?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the House will allow me to say so, I think that is a most unworthy suggestion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure for the House facilities for ventilating this topic before we separate for so long a period?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have said over and over again that I am doing my very best to get the negotiations to a point which would enable me to make an announcement before the House rises, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, it is not in my hands alone. When one is dealing with, international affairs, it is not with the Cabinet that one is dealing or with a department, but with a very complicated set of circumstances. I say that I am doing my best to expedite matters so that an announcement may be made before the House rises, but, if it is impossible, I cannot do it, and I hope the House will not ask me to tie my hands.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, quite apart from the national importance of this matter, seeing that this programme is a year behind, it is necessary to make as early an announcement as possible, because it affects the livelihood of many thousands of people in the Naval ports?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his followers have many supporters in the Naval ports?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before the Prime Minister replies to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), may I ask whether it is not a fact that in 1928 the last Government dropped certain war vessels,

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is quite irrelevant to the question on the Paper.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, put it to you that my question is relevant to the questions which have been put across the Floor of the House by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow the Prime Minister to answer my question, as he has been courteous enough to indicate that he is willing to do so. I do not see that I should be ruled out because other hon. Members ask questions which are irrelevant.

The PRIME MINISTER: I was going to say that the situation is very fully in our minds at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

Major WOOD: 56.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to institute the promised official investigation into the fishing industry?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I have been asked to reply. As I have already stated, I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether there is any occasion for a formal official inquiry to supplement the general review of the fishing industry in which we are both engaged.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has considered that this inquiry only is necessary, when it was stated—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask his question and not give information.

Major WOOD: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to ask whether the Government propose to have a set inquiry into this matter, as they said they were going to do.

Mr. BUXTON: The Government are doing what they said they would do, and that is to carry out an official investigation into the fishing industry. It may be that the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself will find that a further step is necessary and to have an official inquiry.

Major WOOD: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet come to the conclusion that a set inquiry is necessary?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not the case that an inquiry was promised, and not an inquiry as to whether an inquiry is necessary?

Mr. BUXTON: The promise was that an official investigation should take place.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is making these inquiries through the Department or inquiries from those who are interested in the fishing industry?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC WORSHIP.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether be will grant an early opportunity of discussing the Motion standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham—["That this House is of the opinion that the action of the Bishops in authorising variations in the order of public worship, without the sanction and against the decision of Parliament, is detrimental to public order and good government."]

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot undertake to give the facilities for which my hon. and learned Friend asks.

Mr. KNIGHT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the profound disquiet in the country caused by the action of the Bishops?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which I did not allow to be put on the Paper and the hon. and learned Member must not put it in the form of a supplementary question.

Mr. KNIGHT: I should certainly not put a question down which you would not allow, but I am merely asking, arising out of the reply of the Prime Minister, whether he is aware of the profound disquiet in the country caused by this action?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. SMITHERS: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received any communication from the Australian Prime Minister with regard to Empire preferences; and, if so, will he publish the correspondence in the form of a White Paper?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) on the 15th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the grants of public money made in 1928 and 1929 to the Lord Mayor's Fund for Distressed Miners were intended to deal with existing distress; whether he is aware that the committees administering the fund have now been informed that until the autumn relief is only to be given to certain cases; that it is proposed to keep money in the fund to distribute in the autumn instead of using is as required immediately and that this means stopping the supply of food to people in need at this moment; and whether, if the
facts are as stated, he will make representations to the Lord Mayor suggesting that the fund be used as and where needed during the present months?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am informed that certain forms of assistance, for example, the general distribution of boots and clothing, have been suspended during the summer months, provision being made for cases of exceptional need. I am further informed that this step has been taken on the advice of the divisional committees who are acquainted with the conditions in the various localities. I am not in a position to do more than convey to the Lord Mayor views which I may gather from hon. Members of this House.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I call attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are 43 questions addressed to the Ministry of Health to-day, not one of which has been reached, and that there is a proposal in future to put questions to another Minister in front of those to the Minister of Health? In view of the importance of the office of the Minister of Health and the many and varied questions that touch the interests of all parties in the House, may I ask whether it is not possible to reconsider the arrangements?

The PRIME MINISTER: Before you reply, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to consider whether, with the great difficulties in apportioning the questions between the parties on the four days of the week, it would not be possible for you, either on your own authority or in consultation with others, to come to some sort of arrangement by which supplementary questions might be reasonably curtailed?

Mr. SEXTON: On a question of Privilege, I want to ask for your guidance. As has been said, there are a number of questions on the Paper which will not be reached. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give the House any guidance as to what number of supplementary questions any individual Member is entitled to put? I want to know, because Members of the Front Opposition Bench have in some cases put no fewer than seven supplementary questions.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: If we are to be asked to curtail supplementary questions, may we in turn say to the Prime Minister that, since it is normally the right of the Opposition to put questions, the right hon. Gentleman should appeal to his own Back Benchers to put fewer questions on the Paper?

Sir W. BRASS: Would it be possible for the first 10 questions, or possibly the first 15, to each of the Departments to appear first on the Paper, and for the rest to come after them?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot carry all these questions in my head at once. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), I think I have told the House before that the arrangement of questions to Ministers is not one for me to settle. It is a matter to be arranged through the ordinary channels, as agreed between the two sides of the House. As regards supplementary questions, I think it was only yesterday that I called the attention of the House to the strict rules which apply to supplementary questions. The only way of administering it is to make an appeal to hon. Members to help me by not asking questions which are obviously not in order or are irrelevant either to the question on the Paper or to the answer which has been given. As regards the other point raised, it is not for me to say whether a question is important enough to be put on the Paper at all, but the remedy of hon. Members who wish to get answers from Ministers, is not to put so many question on the Paper.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I call attention to the fact that to-day the supplementary questions have not really been excessive. We have actually dealt with fewer than 80 questions, and that is a very fair average.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Might it not be possible to arrange that priority should be given to those Members who do not ask regularly three questions every day?

Major COLFOX: The suggestion which I would offer is that, instead of taking a week of four Parliamentary days as the unit of time in this matter, we should take a fortnight of eight days and give a Minister priority on one day in a fortnight instead of on one day in a week.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not possible to ask the Foreign Office, which now has two days, to drop one of those days in favour of the Ministry of Health?

Sir W. BRASS: May I have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: With reference to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) as to supplementary questions, I make no complaint of an excessive number of them being asked today.

RUSSO-CHINESE RELATIONS.

Mr. SMITHERS (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the House the latest available information with regard to diplomatic relations between the Soviet and the Chinese Governments?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, I have telegraphed to His Majesty's Minister at Peking asking for the latest information. No reply has reached me up to the present.

Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the fact that in the "Times" of this morning, it is suggested that diplomatic relations have been broken off, are we to understand that the Foreign Office has no information which they can give to the House upon this most important subject?

Mr. HENDERSON: That is exactly what I have told the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: May I ask the Prime Minister to state what the business will be next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Housing (Revision of Contributions Bill), Third Reading; Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill, Committee.

Tuesday: Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Bill, later stage. Time will be made available for discussion of the Prayer standing on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), against various Orders made under the Poor Law Act of 1927.

Wednesday: Committee of Supply, Consideration of Supplementary Estimates for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery, and for the purchase of radium in accordance with the undertaking of the late Government. I may say that these Supplementary Estimates will, it is hoped, be available for Members on Saturday, 20th July. It is proposed also to take the Second Heading of the Land Drainage Bill which we expect to receive from another place to-morrow.

Thursday: Land Drainage Bill, further stages. It is anticipated that the Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Bill will be received from another place in time to admit of its Second Reading being taken also on this day.

On any day, if time permits, other Orders may be taken.

Perhaps I had better make a statement at this stage about the anticipated date of the rising of the House. On present indications, I hope it may be possible for the House to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, 26th July, but this possibility depends on the progress of the business here and in another place. I would ask the House to allow me to defer making a definite statement on this matter until, say, next Tuesday.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: May I ask the Prime Minister what is going to happen to the Bill for the amendment of the Scottish Local Government Act?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I expected that there was going to be a question about that matter. I reminded the House yesterday of the purpose for which this Bill was printed and circulated and the only conditions under which it could go through its further stages. I have made inquiries as to its chances in relation to the business which must be finished this month. I have also had representations of both sides of Scottish opinion. With very much regret, I see no prospect of this Bill passing all its stages in this House and in another
place, in time to be effective and, so, I do not propose to ask the House to discuss it further.

Miss LEE: May I ask for guidance in this matter? Is there any insurmountable reason why this House should not go on a little while longer to consider this Bill. Profound disappointment and indeed indignation will be caused in Scotland if it is dropped at this stage, especially as many of us on these benches felt that we had a full assurance in this House that this matter would, above all others, be given consideration before the House rose?

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Is it not the the case that on Wednesday last the Prime Minister gave this House an undertaking that he was going to save the education portion of the Bill, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his action is going to cause great disappointment to the authorities and the people in Scotland who were counting upon what he said?

Miss LEE: May I have an answer to my question?

The PRIME MINISTER: May I, at the earliest opportunity, say that the description of what I said in this House last week is most inaccurate? I said exactly the opposite. I said that the Bill would be printed and circulated so that hon. Members might see the best that could be done in the circumstances, and one of the facts that we took into consideration was that of representations from public authorities who complained about the dislocation that would take place in administration if the Bill were put through. I am not in a position to say, and I am not saying, whether that representation was a sound one or an unsound one, but, in the consideration of the matter, all that had to be faced in considering whether we could get this Bill through in time. It was not a question of getting it through at any time. That was a consideration which we had to face.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend that there will be no further inquiry into Scottish local self-government or into Scottish local government?

The PRIME MINISTER: That part of my statement (which was a definite statement) remains.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If the inquiry is going to take place in October, surely it will be a post-mortem?

The PRIME MINISTER: In any event, four-fifths will be.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Prime Minister aware that this was a major subject as far as the last Election was concerned, and, further, that all considerations he may have to hear do not apply to the decision that was given on the voting day in May last? Further, is he aware that the Liberal party gave no indication as to their attitude, and came to a decision only the day before yesterday? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It the Liberal party now give an assurance that they will do their best to continue this Session until the Scottish Bill is seen through, will the Prime Minister then consider continuing the matter further?

Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. With reference to the statement that has just been made by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), may I, on behalf of my colleagues, say that the statement he has just made is quite untrue?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I was one of those who believed the statement that the Prime Minister made in this matter. I believe that the Government—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking a question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Prime Minister this question? Were not all the relevant facts, the decision with reference to this Bill and the approximate date fixed for the Adjournment of the House, considered, and must not these facts have been present in his mind when he made the announcement concerning the further progress of the Bill?

Miss LEE: Am I out of order in pressing for an answer to my question?

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I have risen, Mr. Speaker, as you have noticed, on several occasions, and on each occasion you have called someone else who has only risen for the first time.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Westwood!

Mr. WESTWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he was not led
to understand that there was unanimity as far as Scottish Labour Members were concerned, and that some of our colleagues then gave him different information behind our backs?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that that is one of those statements that are so well typified every morning in the newspapers, which tell those delightful stories about us, not one of which has any foundation in fact. As far as the Bill is concerned and the action I have taken, if I had foreseen the circumstances when I made my speech in Glasgow which laid down the policy as far as I could speak for the party, the indications I made in that speech of what could be done turned out to be exactly what has happened. I stated that there was a possibility of education being separated from the rest of the Act, but that I was not sure and would look into it, and if anything could be done we should do it. As far as the Act itself is concerned, it could not be annulled or changed, but as regards the whole of the altered Scottish local government machinery, the Labour party, if it had the enjoyment of a Parliamentary life—and by that I meant the life of a full Parliament—would certainly before going to the country have their inquiries completed and take action.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Government to suspend the operation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, or to proceed with its Bill to amend the said Act."

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise, in their places, and fewer than 40 Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I have been trying for quite a time to be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to put a question to the Prime Minister on a matter which has just been closed, I take it, by the count made by you, and I wish to give notice, therefore, that I shall raise this matter at eleven o'clock to-night on the Motion for the Adjournment.

PROCEDURE (UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS' BUSINESS).

Report for the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill [Lords],

Stoke-on-Trent Extension Bill [Lords],

Romford Gas Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Sutton District Waterworks Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Glasgow Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Kilmarnock Water Provisional Order
Bill, without Amendment.
Government of India (Aden) Bill, with an Amendment.
Clyde Navigation Bill,
Hendon Urban District Council Bill,
Grand Junction Company Bill,
Derby Corporation Bill,
Barmouth Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure: (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway." [London, Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Inverness Water and Gas." [Inverness Water and Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Leith Harbour and Docks."[Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Inverness Water and Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADEN) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929).

Estimate presented, of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1930 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make advances for the purposes of Colonial development.)

Sir HILTON YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after the word "make," to insert the words "or guarantee."
4.0 p.m.
I must apologise to the hon. Member opposite for not being able to put this Amendment on the Paper, but the time has been very short. I move the Amendment in order to raise the question, which the hon. Member the Chancellor of the Duchy will remember that I put to the House on the Second Reading, that it would be of advantage could we somewhat extend the powers of the Government and give them a more flexible weapon. I will not trouble the Committee with the whole contention over again, because it will be in the memory of hon. Members. Briefly, it would enable the Government to bring certain colonies and territories before the loan markets of the world in order to make them better acquainted with potential borrowers. It would be very valuable to the Government, which I am sure they will appreciate. Our only wish is to assist the Government to get the fullest benefits from, the Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley): The point raised in the Amendment relates to the very interesting question which the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) raised in his speech yesterday. As far as I understand it, he desires not only to give the Government power to make a loan or a direct gram to a Colony, but also to give power to guarantee. I cannot altogether follow—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to guarantee the interest or the loan?

Sir O. MOSLEY: As far as I follow the right hon. Gentleman, he desires to guarantee the loan. Is not that so?

Sir H. YOUNG: If my Amendment were accepted, the Clause would read: "may make or guarantee advances." That might leave it in doubt whether it would be possible to guarantee both principal and interest, but the intention is that the Treasury should have power to guarantee both principal and interest.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman wishes, in addition to the power given in the Clause, to give power to guarantee, and it seems to me at first sight that the more direct method of approach is of greater advantage to the Colonies concerned. I cannot accept the Amendment at this stage, because I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the word "guarantee" would definitely go outside the terms of the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is based. If the Amendment had not been so excluded, I should have had more to say on the interesting point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but as the matter is thus excluded, possibly the right hon. Gentleman will see fit not to press his Amendment at this stage.

Mr. SMITHERS: Whereabouts in the Financial Resolution is this Amendment excluded?

Sir O. MOSLEY: So far as I can remember, the word "guarantee" is not included in it, and it makes no reference to that kind of assistance. It makes reference only to direct loans or grants.

Commander WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Would it be out of order to discuss the merits of this question, seeing that the Chairman has allowed the Amendment to be moved?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not the Financial Resolution before me, - but in so far as I remember it, I do not think it would be out of order to discuss this Amendment.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: May we have a representative of the Treasury present?

Earl WINTERTON: May I press what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) has just asked? In view of what was said the other day, and in view of the fact that the Treasury are vitally concerned in these matters, may I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who is in
charge of the Debate should ask for the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?

Sir O. MOSLEY: He is coining.

Mr. DENMAN: I submit that we should be doing far more good in making a definite loan up to the limit of £1,000,000 a year, and should not be handicapping ourselves by having to keep something in hand for possible reserves against guarantees, as we should have to do if this Amendment were inserted.

Commander WILLIAMS: While the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is being fetched, may I back up the request made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), that it is essential, on these very complicated financial questions—

Sir O. MOSLEY: On a point of Order. May I direct your attention, Mr. Young, to the Financial Resolution, which definitely says that these advances may be made
either by way of grant or by way of loan.
There is no mention of the word "guarantee" at all in it. The right hon. Gentleman did not send a copy of his manuscript Amendment, and now that I have had a look at the Financial Resolution again, it is quite clearly not included in its terms. Therefore, it would not, I am afraid, be open to me to accept the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I have already apologised for the fact that the Amendment is in manuscript, but we only carried the Second Reading of the Bill at midnight yesterday.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I make no complaint.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am in a dilemma, because either the Amendment is in order or it is out of order, and the Chairman, I understand, rules that it is in order.

The CHAIRMAN: When I gave that Ruling, I was speaking from memory as to the terms of the Financial Resolution, but I have since had the opportunity of reading the Financial Resolution, and, under the circumstances, I think it would be better for me now to rule the Amendment out of order.

Commander WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. It is a fairly wide Resolution, and there is this point to be considered, that a loan, taking it from the point of view of a loan, means lending the whole of the sum, but obviously a guarantee is a smaller part of that sum in a sense, and the smaller part is clearly included in the whole. From that point of view, and with great respect, I think the Chairman's first ruling on this matter would enable us to discuss the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I am under the necessity, after having read the Financial Resolution, of ruling the Amendment out of order.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: On a point of Order. This is a very important point. The Chancellor of the Duchy stated that the Financial Resolution covers advances made by way of grant or loan, but surely, if you may make advances, you may guarantee advances. The making of an advance surely, as the greater includes the less, must include the guaranteeing of an advance. If you make an advance, and make it whole, surely if you guarantee an advance, it means a far less charge on public funds than the making of an advance, as the greater includes the lesser.

Sir O. MOSLEY: On that point of Order. In all Financial Resolutions which provide for guarantees, the word "guarantee" is specifically inserted. All hon. Members who have studied these things are well familiar with that fact. You never see a Financial Resolution providing for a guaranteed loan out of public funds without the expression "guaranteed" being included. Therefore, with this well-known Parliamentary precedent in view—

Lord E. PERCY: What is the precedent?

The CHAIRMAN: The Financial Resolution authorises the Treasury
to make advances, either by way of grant or by way of loan,
and that seems to me to limit it to these two words.

Sir H. YOUNG: On a point of Order. Your Ruling, Sir, is, with great respect, one of very great interest. Every Amendment to a Bill must admittedly bring
itself strictly within the terms of the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is founded, and that, I understand, is the basis of your ruling, but to make an advance by way of loan must, I submit, include all necessary incidental operations. Guaranteeing an advance may be necessary, and certainly is incidental, to the actual making of the advance itself. To make an advance "by way of loan," if one looks at the true meaning of the words "by way of," includes guaranteeing an advance. I can find no other meaning to attach to the words "by way of." I confess that my anxiety to get past the ruling on the point of Order is because there are real merits in the proposal, as the Chancellor of the Duchy indicated when he told us he would have more to say on it in other circumstances.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I cannot help thinking that there can be no question but that your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is correct. In answer to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), surely there is a fundamental difference between guaranteeing a loan, the commitments in regard to which will take place years after the guarantee has been made, and making a loan. There is no point in guaranteeing a loan if the guarantee can be called on in a few months' time or next year. That is an entirely different proposition from advancing money within the limit of £1,000,000 which is operative either in the actual year of the advance or in the following year. To extend this provision, which applies to a definite amount that may be advanced, either by way of grant or by way of loan, at the time, to providing a guarantee which may be operative years ahead and is only expected to be operative years later, is quite clearly a very wide extension of the power conferred by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. Is not the real point that no power is given in the Financial Resolution to give such a guarantee because there is no certainty about the future? No power is given in the Resolution to guarantee a future loan.

The CHAIRMAN: Now that I have got the Financial Resolution before me, I think I must rule that we are confined to the words in the Resolution.
either by way of grant or by way of loan.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "applies," to insert the words:
to be expended on works there.
I apologise for not having put this Amendment on the Order Paper, but we have been frightfully rushed, and I have sent a copy of it to the Under-Secretary of State, so that he has the material before him. If my Amendment is accepted, the Clause will read:
may make advances to the Government of any Colony or of any territory to which this section applies, to be expended on works there, for the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture and industry.
People will say that these words make no difference at all, and yet I believe they are necessary -if we want to stop the building of the Zambesi Bridge. I wanted to bring in the question of that Bridge, and it struck me that by insisting that the money which is advanced should be spent on works in the Colonies, we should thereby rule out the possibility of wasting large sums of public money on a venture in Portuguese territory. I wish that we had in this Chamber a large map of South Africa, so that Members could see the position of the railway. The whole object of the Zambesi Bridge, and of rival projects for dealing with the problem of Nyasaland, depend upon the necessity in the eyes of the planters in Nyasaland of getting access to the sea. There are two methods. One is to run their coffee down the lines of five different railway companies and transport it across the Zambesi by barges, getting finally to the Port of Beira. Four-fifths of that route and the Bridge which it is proposed to build are in Portuguese territory, and the vested interests in these railways are considerable. In the interests, of the railway companies which have never paid—at any rate, they have been most unprofitable to the shareholders—and in the interests of the people who have land round Beira, we have these vested interests clamouring for this route from Nyasaland to the sea through Portuguese territory.
There is another method, and I want hon. Members, particularly those on the opposite side, to observe what that method is. It is to tap Nyasaland through Tanganyika. The proposal is
to build a railway line from Dodoma to Fyffe, and get the produce through Tanganyika to Dar-es-Salaam instead of taking it to Beira. The project is estimated to cost £2,300,000. The Zambesi bridge is estimated—very much underestimated—at £1,500,000, but, since the estimate was made, they have had the frightful flood, which swept away all the landmarks in the neighbourhood where the bridge was to be. If we must spend this money in order to develop Nyasaland, we should develop it through our own territory, developing Tanganyika at the same time, including those parts of Tanganyika which are higher and where it is possible for whites to live, rather than develop it through Portuguese territory. When this matter was before the House last year or the year before, no hon. Member was more determined in his opposition to the Zambesi Bridge than my hon. Friend who is now, alas, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Would he had been in the Colonial Office to continue his opposition to this project! He pointed out that one of the chief objections to the Zambesi bridge was that it could only be made to pay according to the report of Sir George Schuster, if a railway of some 50 miles—

Earl WINTERTON: I would like to raise a point of Order, and ask if it is not-usual, when we are discussing a Clause, the first words of which are "The Treasury, etc.," for a representative of the Treasury to be present? I called attention to this matter some time ago, and was assured that the hon. Gentleman was coming. He came in and went out again like—if I may say so without disrespect—a Jack-in-the-box. May I ask whether we are not entitled to have a representative of the Treasury present during the whole of the discussion on a question which so closely affects the Treasury?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I can assure the Noble Lord that the Treasury representative will be in attendance throughout the Debate, and he need have no fear that the representative will not be here. He has gone out for only a moment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The probable argument in favour of the Zambesi bridge was that it would enable the railway to
link up with the Tete coalfields, which are in Portuguese territory. I do not know who owns them, but the capital is probably international. It was estimated that no less than 300,000 tons of coal a year could be got from the Tete coalfields and carried down the railway to the sea, and the objection raised by the Labour party to this proposal last year was that we were spending millions of money of the British taxpayer in developing a new coalfield, which would be worked by black labour, and would put this coal on board at Beira for bunkering purposes at prices which must undercut and bring down still further the price of British bunker coal. I want to know whether in this Bill, which is brought forward primarily in order to reduce unemployment in this country, we are really going to undertake the expenditure of this money in order to develop a coalfield worked by Africans at a price with which we cannot possibly compete. Here we are spending our money to develop this new coalfield, which can only inevitably result in depriving our miners in this country of work.
This matter has been reported upon over and over again. The pressure that has been brought to bear on this question by the vested interests concerned in the various railway companies is marvellous, yet report after report made by Government servants has been against it. Sir George Schuster used to be a member of the Liberal party; he is now a finance Minister in India, and the biggest financial expert on this work. He has twice reported on East Africa, and his report on the Zambesi bridge is pretty crushing. He says:
We do not at present feel that we could recommend the provision of funds for so costly a project as the bridge.
He goes on to state his reasons, and says finally:
We have seen proposals which have been prepared for this purpose on the lines of 'a public-private company' such as was recommended by the Committee on Private Enterprise in British Tropical Africa, which reported in 1924, and, without expressing any opinion as to the fairness of these particular proposals, we consider that an arrangement of this kind n, night be suitable in this case.
There we have Sir George Schuster urging that, if this money could be spent, it should be spent in a way which would not solely redound to the benefit of those
railway companies which have not paid any dividend at all in the past, and which, directly this bridge is built, will be able to carry the traffic and earn dividends. I do not like the way in which this Zambesi bridge has been pressed forward. When we are bringing in a Bill for colonial development, I think that we might at least prevent money being used for the development of Portuguese territory for the benefit of shareholders in railway companies, and above all for the development of the port of Beira. I admit that a large amount of the land round Beira is owned by British capitalists, but we are not here to develop Portuguese territory for the benefit of British capitalists. We are here to use this money so as to develop the trade and industry of the British colonies concerned. By one scheme you develop Tanganyika as well as Nyasaland. By the other, you develop Portuguese territory as well as Nyasaland, and, in addition, you develop this dangerously competing coalfield, which will still further harass the coal mining industry in this country.
There is another point which should be taken into account. Under the original proposal, and under this proposal, it is inevitable that the interest on the money spent on this bridge should be met by the inhabitants of Nyasaland. The charge for the interest on the loan falls upon the Nyasaland Budget. Nyasaland is a very small colony, and the people there with one accord have emphatically protested over and over again against being saddled with the Zambesi Bridge. The demand for this work does not come from the people who are to pay, or even from the people whose goods are to be transported over the railway. The demand comes from the vested interests concerned in the railroads, the port companies and the land companies round the Port of Beira. If there be any possibility of first consulting the people of Nyasaland, who will have to find the interest, it should be done, in order that we may avoid the charge of having put an unbelievably large burden upon a very small country with a very small budget. It is said that the cost will be £1,000,000. That is one of the difficulties in connection with this Bill. You might spend £1,000,000 on the Zambesi Bridge and not finish it, and you would have to find another £1,000,000 in order to finish it. If you are
dealing with a railway, you get so far with your money, but, when you deal with a bridge, and find it costs £2,000,000 instead of £1,000,000 you have to come to the British Treasury again for the other £1,000,000.
The real seriousness lies in the fact that there is a perfect passion in Africa particularly in East Africa, for making expensive improvements, and then leaving the people of the colony to find the money with which to pay the interest on the advance made. Takoradi is a case in point. It cost 50 per cent. more than the original estimate. It is an excellent port, but it can never pay for itself. Here we are doing it over again. The white taxpayers have protested against the Bridge being built and paid for out of their money. I hope that the House of Commons will ask the Government to make this small change in the Bill. I am confident that the Colonial Office have gone into the project without consulting Sir George Schuster who knows all about it. It will mean putting a heavy burden on the taxpayers of Nyasaland, and an unlimited liability upon the Treasury of this country. We ask for this small alteration in the Bill so that we shall confine the money that is advanced to the colonies to work in those colonies, instead of putting it into a foreign country.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not rise to reply to the specific Amendment proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but I understand that during my absence the point was raised that I ought to be in the Committee to deal with these matters. I am, of course, perfectly willing to be present to deal with any financial points which may be raised, but I do not think that it is in accordance with the usual practice of this House that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury is expected to be present during the consideration of all Bills and on all occasions when any money matter is under discussion. After all, all the Estimates appear in the name of the Treasury, but it has never been the custom of the Financial Secretary to be in his place whenever they are discussed. Therefore, though I am perfectly willing to come here when the actual needs of the case are such that I ought to be here, I think the Committee will give me this relief, that in view of the
very considerable work which has to be done by the Financial Secretary, he should not be expected to be here on all occasions whenever the word "Treasury" appears in any Bill or whenever any Estimate is under discussion.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he did not rise to deal with the Amendment, but to say something else. I do not know whether he was putting his statement in the form of a personal explanation, but I would submit to you that this is obviously a point of Order. I shall venture to treat it as a point of Order, and would like to raise another point of Order on the point of Order raised by the hon. Gentleman. As a member of this House for many years I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I do not for one moment suggest nor, I think, do any of my hon. or right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee suggest, that on every occasion when the word "Treasury" appears in a Clause a representative of the Treasury should be present, though usually one of them is present.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make an illusion to the point raised by the Noble Lord and then to pass on to the Amendment. I would like to know what the point of Order is.

Earl WINTERTON: I was informed by one of the representatives of the Government that the Financial Secretary was coming in to the Committee, and I wish to ask whether it is not in accordance with the usual practice of the Committee, and of the House generally, that where we have under discussion a Clause in a Bill giving the Treasury such very considerable rights, obligations and responsibilities as they have under this Clause, a representative of the Treasury should be present. I would call attention to these words in the Clause:
The Treasury, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and on the recommendation of the Committee … may make advances.
It is the Treasury which makes the advances, and not the Colonial Office.' Further, this Bill is based on a Financial Resolution. When such a Clause is under discussion is it not in accordance with the usual practice that
a representative of the Treasury, either the Chancellor himself, or, as is usual, the Financial Secretary, should be present? This is a very important matter.

The CHAIRMAN: As far as my experience of the House goes, a representative of the Treasury is expected to be on the Treasury Bench when necessary, but it does not come within the competence of the Chair to see that he is there.

Mr. SMITHERS: On that point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order. I have said that this matter is not within the competence of the Chair.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I reply to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?

Sir O. MOSLEY: The hon. Member will no doubt have opportunities in the course of the discussion to make any observations on the statement of the Financial Secretary which may occur to him. I submit to the Noble Lord that this is really a matter of ordinary House of Commons procedure rather than a point of Order to be settled by the Chair, and I do not think it is a question which need create any friction between us. It is one which can be settled on a perfectly reasonable understanding. I have been only 11 years in this House, and the Noble Lord has been here far longer, but I recollect very many occasions when I myself—

The CHAIRMAN: I have already said that this matter does not come within the competence of the Chair.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I bow at once to your ruling, Sir, but as the Noble Lord raised the point—

Earl WINTERTON: No, I did not raise it; it was the Financial Secretary.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I understand, then, that there will be no development of this question, and I can address myself straightaway to the Amendment before us. My right hon. and gallant Friend has put down a manuscript Amendment, one of many manuscript Amendments which are likely to arise in the course of these discussions. I should like to say in connection with all these manuscript Amendments that it may very well be
that situations will arise which are difficult to handle on the Committee stage. If there be any such difficulties, and after further consideration, I shall always be glad to do what I can to see that the matter is reopened on the Report stage. Without dealing with the last Amendment which was moved, because it would be out of order for me to do so, I would like to say that in such cases I will gladly reconsider the matter on Report stage if any means can be found of overcoming a situation which on the Committee stage presents some difficulty.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that if no Amendment is made in a Bill in Committee there will be no Report stage?

Sir O. MOSLEY: With that consideration in mind, I was proposing to make provision during the Committee stage for a Report stage to arise. Of course, if no Amendments are accepted in Committee there will be no Report stage, and I had it in mind to accept certain Amendments and so make provision for there to be a Report stage. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has put down an Amendment the effect of which, as he very clearly pointed out, would be to stop work on the Zambesi Bridge. These words, which at first sight appear to be so innocent, would, in fact, arrest one of the very largest schemes of Colonial development which is now under the review of the Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman expressed certain fears concerning this bridge which, on my information, will not be realised. He raised the very large question of the Tete coalfields in Portuguese territory, and he asked under what national auspices they were being developed. I understand that a Belgian company are developing those coalfields, which are in Portuguese territory. The fear of my right hon. and gallant Friend was that this coal company could use the Zambesi Bridge without any control from this country in order to compete more effectually against coal produced in Great Britain. I think I can assure him that his fears in this respect are not justified. If he looks very carefully at the map he will see that it is impossible for this Belgian coal to cross the Zambesi Bridge without traversing British territory. I think a line would have to be
built over British territory before the coal could be carried to the Zambesi Bridge and enjoy the facilities of the development which we are now discussing.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I deny that. That is absolutely wrong.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I addressed myself to this question some time ago—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did you look at the map?

Sir O. MOSLEY: My right hon. and gallant Friend can be assured, I think, that this coal cannot get to the bridge—anyhow without making a tremendous detour—unless it comes over British territory. I believe that by making a very great detour it is possible to get the coal to the bridge by another route.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It might go round the Zambesi.

Sir O. MOSLEY: We have examined this question, and such geographical obstacles are placed in the way that really it is not a practical or economic proposal for the coal to use the bridge unless the British Government are prepared to provide additional facilities, which naturally it would look into very strictly if there were any question of the coal competing with our own. I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that that point has not been absent from our minds. Directly we came into office we looked into this project very carefully from precisely the aspect he has raised, and we were satisfied that such powers would reside in the hands of the British Government that the fears which he expresses are really not justifiable. It is not a new point, but is one which has been present to our minds, and we are more than ready to take every possible step which lies within our power to see that this threat to our own industries will not materialise by reason of the Zambesi Bridge.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman attacked the project not only from the standpoint of a possible threat to the trade of this country, but also approached it from the standpoint of the inhabitants of Nyasaland, and appeared to think that in some way, which I could not altogether understand, they would suffer rather than benefit from this project. Again I am assured that no burden at all is expected
to fall on the local taxpayers. We have very clear advice on that subject. I would remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that under the Bill there are powers by which we can assist this project and prevent, if necessary, any charge falling upon a country so poor as is Nyasaland. I am assured that under the arrangements which have been made no such charge is likely to accrue.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to this extract from Sir George Schuster's Report? This is the official Report on which the Colonial Office have acted.

Sir O. MOSLEY: What is the date?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1920. It says:
It is not claimed that the exports from Nyasaland itself are likely within the near future to make the bridge a paying proposition.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I was on the point of the great burdens which, according to my right hon. and gallant Friend, were likely to fall upon the inhabitants.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But if it is not a paying proposition the inhabitants have to make up the difference.

Sir O. MOSLEY: No, not necessarily, because powers are given under this Bill to assist the undertakers. If the fears of my right hon. and gallant Friend are realised, then it is quite open to the British Government under this Bill to provide assistance which will obviate the burdens which he fears will be placed upon Nyasaland. All these things are really matters for administration by the Colonial Office. You cannot in advance decide by Statute every administrative matter which may arise in years to come. What we do under the Bill is to take power in such an event to provide assistance to meet the situation. Whether or not the calculations of my right hon. and gallant Friend will be justified remain to be seen, but, if they are justified, then we have the power to prevent the contingency of extra burdens falling upon the local inhabitants. If, on the other hand, his fears that this project will prove uneconomic are not realised, then no burdens need fall upon anybody. In any case, the people who seem to be in clover are the inhabitants. They are having
their territory opened up, and if the project proves uneconomic then it is open to the home Government, which is bearing this large commitment, to come to their assistance if their situation will not justify any burden being placed upon them.
5.0 p.m.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has referred to the Schuster Report, and I am dealing with the point as to whether the Zambesi bridge is likely to prove an economic proposition or not. I am informed that Sir George Schuster has recommended that this bridge should be built, and that it will pay in the long run. If it does not pay immediately, power is taken to provide any further assistance that may be necessary. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme has quoted Sir George Schuster's opinion very freely, but I understand that it was on the recommendation of Sir George Schuster that the project was undertaken, and, as a matter of fact, £400,000 has actually been spent on the strength of the recommendations contained in the Report issued by Sir George Schuster. The actual words used by Sir George Schuster indicate that he actually recommended this project and recommended the expenditure of the money which has already been spent. Sir George Schuster is quite confident that in the long run this project will prove to be an economic proposition. In addition, the project is being undertaken by a public utility company. The Government are trying to secure control, and that meets some of the points which hon. Members wish to raise in the Amendments on the Order Paper. We certainly have that in view, and out object is to secure a very effective control over the whole of the arrangements.
I do not think there was any other specific point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The inhabitants of Nyasaland are safeguarded, and in the opinion of Sir George Schuster the project is likely to be a success economically. If it is not economically successful, then we have power to give assistance, and there is no reason at all why any burden should fall upon the local inhabitants. With regard to the point raised about the Tete coalfield, it lies within the power of the British Government to obviate the danger which my right hon. and gallant
Friend has suggested. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider the general effect if the Zambesi bridge project is destroyed. A whole railway system has been built up in Nyasaland and £400,000 has already been spent upon it. Here we have one of the most important projects of colonial development, the result of which it has been estimated will give a very large number of orders to the manufacturers in this country. I think the fears which my right hon. Friend has raised have been met and safeguarded, and it would be a mistake to turn our back on great developments which have already been undertaken, and scrap a project which does present some prospect of giving immediate employment to the workers of this country by opening up a new market. I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to reconsider the Amendment which he has moved, and allow us to take power to proceed with the project.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What is the total estimated cost of the bridge and will the steel required be purchased in this country?

Sir O. MOSLEY: The total is in the neighbourhood of £2,750,000. We have control of the company which is building it, and of course we have control of the source of supply of steel.

Mr. HAYCOCK: How much of that total have we guaranteed?

Sir O. MOSLEY: We have not guaranteed anything.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I now understand that the estimate is £2,750,000.

Sir O. MOSLEY: It is considerably greater than my right hon. and gallant Friend stated.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Chancellor of the Duchy has stated that the Government are acting upon the recommendation of Sir George Schuster's report. May I point out that my objections are based on a report made by Sir George Schuster which was issued two years ago, and was debated at great length in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Duchy must be referring to a new Report. We have not got that Report, but I think we should have it before us in order to show the changed mind of Sir George Schuster, who has been in India for the last year,
and I cannot understand why a fresh Report from him is now available. I think we ought to have an opportunity of studying the new Sir George Schuster as we had of studying the old Sir George Schuster, more particularly in view or the fact that the estimate for this project is nearly treble the original amount. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the people in Nyasaland ought not to grumble, because the taxpayers of this country are going to find the money, but how does he tell that? Once we make a grant the Treasury fixes the rate of interest, and decides when the loan is to be repaid, and when they have done that the liability of the taxpayers of this country is fixed; but the liability of the people of Nyasaland is indefinite if the project) does not prove to be a paying proposition.
As it is now proposed to enter into this highly speculative business, I would like to ask if the Colonial Office have inquired, as they promised me that they would do, what is the opinion of the people in Nyasaland about this project. I have received protests against these proposals from people in Nyasaland and the Nyasaland newspaper Press has been very emphatic about the question. It may make a difference to those people in Nyasaland now that the British taxpayer is going to provide for five years what the people of Nyasaland thought they would have to pay. I think we ought to know definitely whether we are going to get value for our money. I know it is very difficult for the Chancellor of the Duchy to deal with an intricate problem of this kind which is really a Colonial Office matter. Nobody can deal effectively with this question without having read the vital reports on this subject, giving the views of experts.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I request that someone from the Colonial Office who knows something about this question should be asked to give us more information? I do not blame the Chancellor of the Duchy for not knowing more about this subject, but I think we ought to have someone from the Colonial Office present who can speak with authority.

Sir O. MOSLEY: It is quite true that I have had an arduous task to master all these subjects in such a short time, but I have given all the facts in regard to the
points which have been raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I have looked into all the matters which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has discussed. I have brought extracts from various Reports, and I am quite prepared to deal with any of these matters.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is this a point of Order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): It has already been pointed out that it is not within the province of the Chair to dictate to the Government as to who shall or who shall not represent them.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether the total estimate for this project is £1,000,000 or £2,750,000. I would like to know what proportion of this sum is represented by orders for steel to be produced in this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid that there will be unlimited pressure brought to bear to build the spur line from the railway to the Tete coalfield m order to make the project pay, and there will be a great deal of justice behind that proposal. The coalfield will be developed, and our colliers at home will suffer in consequence. The Chancellor of the Duchy has claimed that the Government are acting on the recommendation made in a Report made by Sir George Schuster. I ask that that Report should be brought forward. I have in my hand the original Report, but I am afraid that at such short notice the Chancellor of the Duchy cannot have had time to read that Report, and therefore he cannot deal with the points which I have raised.
I desire to raise two further questions. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston), whose knowledge of Colonial questions is rather exhaustive, opposed this scheme in the House last year, and made an eloquent speech upon it from the Opposition Benches. I want to know what has happened to change the opinion of the Government to an opinion diametrically opposite to that which was then held by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. Finally, I should like to say a word respecting the alternative
scheme of £1,300,000, which was ruled out because it was more costly even than the Zambesi Bridge at £1,000,000. The Zambesi Bridge is now costing £2,750,000. It would be much better to build the railway through our own territory, developing the native lands through which it goes and opening them up for British settlers, than to build it in Portuguese territory.

Sir H. YOUNG: The reports of Sir George Schuster have been criticised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I think somewhat unjustly—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have not criticised Sir George Schuster's report for a moment; I approve of it entirely.

Sir H. YOUNG: Then I misunderstood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I thought that he was criticising Sir George Schuster for a difference of opinion between his two reports.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am very sorry, but we must not have this misunderstanding. I approve entirely of this report of Sir George Schuster, but I am told by the Government that he has now made a different report. Before I criticise that, I must, naturally, see it. I do not believe that he has contradicted his first report. [Interruption.] Let us see it.

Sir H. YOUNG: I speak, of course, not with the perfect knowledge of this subject which will be in the possession of the representatives of the Colonial Office, but, in the course of public duties, I have obtained some acquaintance with the history of the reports upon the Zambesi Bridge, which are, of course, entirely of a public nature; and I believe that the explanation of the difficulty in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind is that the matter has been dealt with on two perfectly separate and different occasions by the eminent authority to whom he has referred. In the first place, it was dealt with in connection with the general distribution of the grant of £10,000,000, when it had to be reviewed in competition with other projects. This led to the report which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted. Unless I am wrong, the report quoted by
the Chancellor of the Duchy was a report directed to reviewing the proposition of the Zambesi Bridge entirely upon its own merits, standing alone—a special report upon the Zambesi Bridge. The difference apparently is—and I think it is perfectly intelligible and what would be expected—that the first report of Sir George Schuster advised that the proposition would not be immediately remunerative. That is just the sort of proposition for which we are looking—one that would not be immediately remunerative; because if it would be immediately remunerative, it would not want any assistance. In his second report he says that it will be ultimately remunerative, and so it comes within the category of what we want. I believe, also, that historically I am not wrong in saying that his second judgment was passed after a visit to Nyasaland and actual inspection of the site, and so with fuller knowledge than the first.
With regard, again, to the difference-in the estimates for the building of the bridge, these estimates are not the estimates of Sir George Schuster as a financial authority, but the estimates of engineers. On further engineering investigation of the technical problem, it was found that the original estimates were too little, and that the amount had to be increased. These are facts which can be and are known to any careful student of this question, and they make the whole relationship as expressed by Sir George Schuster perfectly intelligible, and also encourage us to think that this is the sort of undertaking for which we are looking with specific reference to the present Bill. I should like to add a word or two upon the actual merits of the undertaking which has been criticised so caustically by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Mr. WALLHEAD: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to Sir George Schuster's report that the bridge will not be immediately remunerative, is he referring to the estimate of £1,000,000 or to the estimate of £2,750,000? I think Sir George Schuster said that it would not be immediately remunerative at £1,000,000, but that it might be ultimately remunerative, and I should like to know when is the ultimate going to be reached at £2,750,000?

Sir O. MOSLEY: The position is perfectly simple. The cost of the actual bridge is only about £1,000,000, but the railway extension connected with the bridge scheme is estimated to cost £2,750,000.

Sir H. YOUNG: I think the hon. Baronet will find, as a matter of historical accuracy, that there was an actual increase in the engineers' estimates for the construction of the foundations of the bridge.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Not so large as that.

Sir H. YOUNG: No, not by any means the total amount to which the hon. Baronet refers. There is really no ground whatever, as far as I can see, for criticism of Sir George Schuster. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead), Sir George Schuster's first judgment of the situation was passed, I believe, on the smaller estimate, but I believe his second judgment—I speak subject to correction—that the proposition would be ultimately economically remunerative, was passed upon the increased estimate for the larger amount, and it is that which is of so much value to us to-day.
With regard to the general situation, I do not think the Committe would have got any idea of the general situation in Nyasaland from the observations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is a great fertile region, with great agricultural potentialities both for its numerous—almost innumerable—native inhabitants, and also for its comparatively small number of white settlers and planters. There is ample room for both in the territories of the Colony. It is, I believe, above all other territories of the British Empire, the one which has been most hampered in the past by bad communications, and of which we have made least as an Imperial asset. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would present to the Committee an alternative, namely, that we ought not to develop this southern route, but ought to develop the northern route, using Dar-es-Salaam as a harbour. I suggest that there is no dilemma or alternative whatever betwen the two proposals. The first thing to do is to develop the obvious southern route, where the railway is already built, only a bridge being needed
to complete it; and then, in course of time, the Northern Lake can be developed by developing the northern route.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: From the speeches we have heard up to the present, it might be gathered that the question at issue was whether the Zambesi Bridge should be built or not, but, as I understand it, that is not the real question. Hon. Members opposite naturally might enjoy very much discussing the Zambesi Bridge for a long time, but that would not conduce to a rapid passage of the Bill. Some of us, at any rate, on this side, while we are interested in the Zambesi Bridge, do not want to discuss it too long. We are only discussing the question whether, if an expert advisory committee should recommend the making of an advance, it shall be open to the Government to make that advance. I do not agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the subject of the Zambesi Bridge, as far as I understand the question, but I do not profess to speak with the same knowledge that he does. All that I would say is that it seems to me very desirable that we should, if possible, pass at a reasonably early period to Amendments on the Paper which appear to me to be of very much greater importance. My right hon. and gallant Friend has put his case on the Zambesi Bridge forcibly and fully, and, personally, I should be well content to leave it in the power of the Treasury to make this advance if it be recommended by the highly expert committee which we understand will be set up.

Commander WILLIAMS: I rather sympathise with the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton). We have had a very long speech—in fact, a series of speeches—from the ex-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, as we all know, has a depth of knowledge on these matters which is not usually found in all quarters of the House. We had also the exposition of the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and we all know that his mind, in regard to many of these matters, if filled with a sweet and perfect innocence, but he has the good fortune to be primed from other places. We now find ourselves, in this very complicated
matter, with two totally and absolutely different ideas on the subject; but we were fortunate enough to have enlightenment on wholly different lines from yet a third right hon. Gentleman on this side. I have much doubt in my own mind as to which of the two sides taken by these two very able right hon. Gentlemen I should come down upon if there be a Division, and any of us may have to decide and vote on this matter in due course. As far as I personally am concerned, I do not want to let the question of the Zambesi Bridge outweigh every other consideration in deading with this most important Amendment, and I will not even go into the matter of the opening up of all these coalfields, but will just read the words of the Amendment as they were read out:
to be expended on works there.
If the Amendment be carried, it means, as I understand it, that a very large part of the money expended under this Bill will have to be spent actually locally in the district, and that is entirely against the whole principle and meaning of the Bill. What we want—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the Colony.

Commander WILLIAMS: In the Colony itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has delivered himself into my hands once again. Supposing that we are building a railway in I he Colony, it is absolutely impossible to spend the whole of the money in the Colony, and it is quite clear and obvious, that in many of these cases this Amendment, well meaning and well intentioned though it be, will make absolute nonsense from the point of view of the great principle that we are working out to-day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The wording of the Amendment means exactly what I want—it means, expended en works there. It does not state that all the work can be carried out in the Colony, but that the works, whether road., railway or bridge, shall be in the Colony which raises the money.

Commander WILLIAMS: I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having clarified the meaning of his words, because there was some doubt on the part of people who should know his mind better than I do, as to what he actually meant. I am very glad indeed to have
arrived at that point. If his argument is that the bulk or the whole of the money for this work should be expended in joining up these Colonies of ours with other parts of the country such as Portuguese Africa, there is a great deal to be said for his point of view, but I do not think that that is a sound line of progress on the whole. As I understand it, the whole problem of Central Africa is to get the goods which can be produced there by the easiest and quickest and best methods to the sea, and, unless you can do that and give the greatest facility for development in that way, you cannot hope for development to the utmost extent possible. On the whole, considering this Amendment in the whole of its bearings and meanings, the House, as far as I can see, will be very ill-advised at present to accept it, whatever the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite may think.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy if he can tell us again what proportion it is estimated will go in the cost of steel to be produced in this country.

Captain BOURNE: As I understand the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, I gathered that there were two reports by Sir George Schuster and that he has quoted from both of them. One report the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said has been issued as a public document. If I am right and he has quoted from the other, does he intend to follow the ordinary Parliamentary procedure and lay it on the Table of the House?

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I think the hon. Member above the gangway was too easily satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. "Works there" I took as having the interpretation he gave it, but perhaps this is an occasion on which, we might demand the presence of the Attorney-General to explain the meaning of the words. "Works there," at any rate, limits the purpose of this Amendment in this way, that, say, a Colony wishes to develop a service of river steamers which can go outside its own territory, and which might be most necessary for developing its agricultural products or promoting its industries, that would clearly be outside these
words, as these steamers might be built on the Clyde. I hope they would. I understood the whole object of the Bill was to promote work in this country. If we can do that, by all means let us do it. The, right hon. Gentleman in trying to bring down one pigeon, has brought down a whole flock. If he persists in putting in these words, he is hampering the activities which are meant to be promoted by the Bill far beyond anything that was in his mind. He will not be merely stopping the Zambesi Bridge. He will be putting obstacles in the way of all kinds of developments which ought to be open to the Government. Therefore, whatever may be the merits of the very interesting discussion on the Zambesi Bridge, obviously the Amendment is perfectly hopeless, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As the Amendment is in manuscript, it is impossible that every Member in the Committee should know precisely what it is. The whole of the hon. Member's speech has been based on the assumption that the word in the Amendment was "work" and not "works." If you say "works," it means that the actual manufacturing can be anywhere you like, but the permanent site should be in the Colonies.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I have been present throughout the whole Debate; I am under no misapprehension as to the nature of the wording, "to be expended on works there." If the Attorney-General was here he could say at once that river steamers, let us say, communicating from the Colony outside the territory would come within these words. Why should we use words which would hamper that kind of development? We had a most interesting discussion upstairs during the last Parliament in which one of the greatest experts on aviation told us how much Colonial development could be helped by experiments in the way of aerial communication, specifying Africa particularly as the one place in the world where this would do most good. All that would be ruled out under this Amendment. It is doing a good deal more than the right hon. Gentleman intends.

Mr. REMER: I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that we are under a great
disadvantage in taking the Committee stage of the Bill the day following the Second Reading, which has been taken so late at night that it is impossible to have anything on the Paper but manuscript Amendments. I came in to-day, having had to fulfil another engagement, half-way through the Debate, and have the greatest difficulty in understanding what this is all about. The Chancellor of the Duchy a few minues ago said he was armed with all the facts, but, instead of making it clearer to me, he has made it far more difficult, and I am sure the whole Committee have found it far more difficult to understand what it is all about. I do not know whether his communications with the officials of his Department mean that be has been indulging in what on the Treasury Bench is called "thinking." It would be a very great advantage if we could adjourn the Debate and see the Amendments on the Paper, so that we could consider them in the way they ought to be considered.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I should like to say a word with regard to the unfortunate limiting effect these words will have on the Bill, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. I will call attention only to one particular aspect in which these words would limit the purpose of the Bill. While the Resolution was under discussion, a considerable amount of attention was directed to the importance of scientific development. If we are to limit our grants in money to be expended on "works there," what would be the position of grants for scientific research? The Committee will see, from an example like that, how impossible the working of the Bill would be if the words remained in.

Lord E. PERCY: I should like to reinforce the appeal that we should come to a decision. We are looking forward to a long series of other jolly little Amendments waiting for us, and I think we might come to a decision on this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "applies," to insert the words:
or to any public utility company operating under general powers in the said colony or territory.
The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the proper authority under the Bill to make advances, not only directly to the Government of the Colony or territory, but also to a public utility company in the territory. It has two objects. The first is to give more elasticity to the Government in making use of the powers of the Bill, and the second is that it tends slightly to achieve the desirable object of making closer the apparatus of Parliamentary control, because instead of there being two steps between Parliament and the use of the Fund, that is, a step from the British to the Colonial Government and then from the Colonial Government to the actual undertaking in the Colony, the step in appropriate cases could be shortened to one, straight from the British Government to the undertaking in the Colony. It is impossible to foresee cases, and it may be worth while slightly to increase the flexibility of the instrument.

Sir O. MOSLEY: This is a manuscript Amendment, the object of which it is very easy to understand, and which will not even necessitate, as some Amendments have done, that submission to official advice which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) so deprecates. Really the hon. Member cannot expect us to go through the whole Bill in Committee, taking scores of manuscript Amendments, without ever submitting to the advice of the Department concerned questions so suddenly raised. He raised an extraordinary objection to our procedure. This Amendment cuts out the Colonial Government. That is our fundamental objection to it. Under the Bill every advance is made through the Colonial Government. The next Subsection provides that the Colonial Government may advance this money to any person or body of persons they think fit. That Sub-section entirely covers the point he has in mind. The only effect of accepting his Amendment would be to short-circuit the Colonial Government—to cut it right out—and that, of course, would be a derangement of the whole existing procedure and, from an administrative point of view, might lead to complications and overlapping which, I am sure, he would be only too anxious to avoid. As the power of the Colonial Government to advance money to such person or body of persons is contained in the Bill, I trust
the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on cutting out the ordinary machinery of the Colonial Government.

Mr. REMER: I would not have intervened but for the extraordinary reply the hon. Baronet has made to my complaint that these Amendments are discussed in manuscript. That is entirely the case I tried to put forward a little earlier this evening, that if the Government had arranged that the Debate in Committee should take place to-morrow, all these Amendments would be on the Order Paper and the hon. Baronet would be able to consult his officials in the morning, consider their real effect and be able to impart that information to the Committee. Now it is obvious that he knows very little about a good many of these Amendments. I really must strongly protest against the way the Debate is being conducted.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I thought, when the right hon. Gentleman was moving his Amendment, that he must necessarily cut out the Colonial Government, and I was very much struck with the argument of the Chancellor of Duchy against that. I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman really intended to cut out the Colonial Government altogether, and I should very much like to hear from him, or someone else, whether any good reasons could be adduced for making this rather remarkable exception, and for what reason he wishes to do it. I think that we ought to have some more information upon it either from my right hon. Friend or from the hon. Member opposite before we come to a final decision upon the Amendment, which, on the face of it, does not seem to be a very good proposal from the administrative point of view. In the meantime, I am very much impressed by the arguments which have been put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend must excuse me. Such reasons as I had to give I gave to the Committee in moving my Amendment. On this matter I think we might prefer acceptance to perfection by leaving it alone.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word "industry," to insert the words "and
for benefiting health or labour conditions."
The Chancellor of the Duchy, on the Second Reading of this Bill, in answer to a question from the other side, stated that he thought that health matters were included in this Bill. The word "health" is not mentioned in the whole of the Bill. The question of health is a very important subject in the Crown Colonies, and especially in the West Indian Islands. The only possible reference in the Bill which can be included under health is the question of the drainage of land and swamps for the removal of malarial conditions. The disposal of sewage in many of these islands is very primitive at present. I want to make it possible for sewage schemes to be brought within the scope of the Measure, as the question of sewage- affects tourist traffic and trade and general health conditions. I also want to make sure that if a company starts a new industry or wishes to develop the fruit industry such a company, if it operates in Great Britain or outside the country concerned, should make proper housing and working conditions for the people engaged in the industry. I hope that my Amendment will be accepted. It does not destroy the effect of the Bill in any way, and is, I think, a reasonable Amendment.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Since the Debate took place in the House, I have looked closely into the question of whether this matter is covered in this Bill. My impression, which I gave to the House yesterday, is quite confirmed by a subsequent reading of the Bill, namely, that in fact health is included in the way I indicated yesterday. I am quite prepared, however, if hon. Members desire it, to consider the inclusion of specific words at a later stage to cover this point. Before we get to the appropriate part of the Bill, which I think will come a little later, I hope to have some words to suggest to my hon. Friend. This cannot be done to-day, but it can certainly be considered on the Report stage. I have no objection in principle to the inclusion of some words to cover the point which has been made.

Dr. MORGAN: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
having due regard to the possibility of recovering for the public revenue any increase in the purchase price or letting value of the land affected.
I am trying to get this Amendment put into this Bill because the ex-Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) were jointly assuring the House the other day that, if one went to certain Colonies he would discover pure and unalloyed Socialism in being. That new enthusiasm for Socialism is making me rather suspicious. The land out there is Crown property, and any development carried out by the expenditure of public money will enhance its value, but we are told we need not be apprehensive as the people there being Socialists owning and controlling the land the benefit would redound to their credit. As I say, I am a little suspicious of these statements from the other side, especially from my knowledge of the developments in certain Colonies. It is for that reason that I desire, if possible, to secure the insertion of these words. In reviewing the whole of this Clause, one might say, that everything put forward under its provisions would have the effect of enhancing the value of the land. If we improve or carry out health facilities or enable the virgin soil to be put to better use, such developments are bound to enhance the value of the land. It is in order that the enhanced value of such land shall accrue to the benefit of the people in the Colonies concerned that I am moving this Amendment. The other day the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton) expressed this very point more eloquently than I am able to do. It is incumbent upon the present Government to see that the enhanced value accruing from the expenditure of public money in these matters should accrue to the people concerned.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved raises a subject which is very dear to his heart, and is a very important subject, indeed. I would suggest that such a matter really concerns Colonial Office administration, and that we cannot in a Bill of this kind deal piecemeal with the fiscal policy of a Colony. It is open to my hon. Friend
to press the Colonial Office on appropriate occasions, such as Colonial Office Votes, to revise the fiscal system of the various Colonies to meet the possibility of unearned increment or other catastrophe which may arise from this Measure. It is really impossible in the body of the Bill to secure safeguards of that kind. I think that to insist upon it would be equally as unreasonable as insisting, in a Bill to deal with the production of roads in this country, upon taxes being placed upon any values which might arise out of the building of these roads, The proper occasion to consider any values thus created is in the general fiscal, system of the country thus affected, and the way to deal with this matter is by general Colonial Office administration rather than by dealing with it in the body of the Bill which we are now discussing. I would appeal to my hon. Friend to divert all his eloquence, force and persuasion to the Colonial Office on the appropriate occasion, and I am sure that Lord Pass-field will be as moved by his arguments in the future as I have been in the past.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Those of us who are not Socialists should be allowed to say that the argument of the Chancellor of the Duchy is a most surprising argument to come from the benches opposite. Why is it impossible for the Government in making advances in respect of the Colonies to have due regard to the possibilities of securing for the future revenue the benefit of any increase in the value of land? It certainly seems to me to be one of the points which should be in their minds. I do not see any reason at all why our Government in dealing with a Colonial Government should urge the Colonial Government to modify their fiscal system. You are, by this Bill, definitely going to interfere with the fiscal system of the different Colonies in the sense that you are not leaving them to manage their own business and carry out their own developments according to the extent of their resources. You are going to urge them to make expenditure which they would not otherwise undertake, and urge upon them developments which they had not hitherto been able to carry out. I think there is more in this Amendment than the Chancellor of the Duchy appeared to indicate and that care should be taken in making advances to see that
the value which accrues to the expenditure of this money shall go to the Colony affected and not exclusively to private individuals. I think that it is a very reasonable Amendment to come from anyone. I know that this is a Liberal and not a Socialist principle, and ever since the days of John Stuart Mill I have been urging it upon the attention of the House though not with very great success. I thought that now we might have looked for a recognition of the principle, and I am very sorry that the Government should turn down the Amendment so summarily.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I think the answer we have had from the Front Bench is rather an unfavourable one. After all, we have been told by the Lord Privy Seal that this is a small Bill. We now see that it may easily cover expenditure up to £40,000,000 guaranteed from public funds and may lead to an enormous amount of development, particularly in regard to land. We presuppose that the spending of enormous sums of money will increase, to a very large extent, the value of the territories of the countries in which the money is expended. We have experience of what has taken place in other countries where land has been bought at very low prices, and has then soared enormously in price. I understand that even in regard to the recent development in Kenya, land which a short time ago was of prairie value, is now sold at hundreds of pounds an acre. If this Amendment were favourably regarded there would be a chance of starting the development of some of these Colonies on sounder financial lines. If this Amendment were accepted it would apply to the whole of the newly developed areas and would at once affect the fiscal policy of the respective Governments of those areas. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, on the ground that we cannot in this Bill interfere with the whole fiscal policy of the Colonies concerned, surely it is possible for us to take what we can get in a provision of this sort. I should have been very pleased if the Government had seen their way to accept the Amendment, and to put it upon record that this party stands definitely in favour of the policy of obtaining at the earliest possible moment for British Colonies in any part
of the world the full value of any communal expenditure upon social developments.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I would appeal to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to withdraw the Amendment, for the reason that it would be almost impossible to administer it. How should we know what was the value of the land before the particular developments had taken place? There has been no valuation made up to the present time, and it would be absolutely impossible to know what improvement in the value of the land was due to any particular development. Another point, which the hon. Member may have forgotten, is that a great deal of this land at the present time consists of native reserves, and belongs to the natives. I do not know whether he suggests that the natives shall be subject to an increased tax, in the form of a hut tax, possibly on their kraal, so as to pay for these improvements.

Mr. C. BUXTON: I should like to suggest to the Government that they might reconsider the question of accepting an Amendment on this point, if not precisely in the terms of the Amendment before the Committee, at any rate in some alternative form. Possibly some suggestion to that effect might be made on the Report stage, to cover the main principle of the Amendment which has been moved. The Amendment is very cautiously, I might almost say very modestly, framed. It does not demand a tax. In regard to the native reserves referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) it would be perfectly possible for the authorities concerned to see that the conditions relating to the native cultivated lands and the public revenues were broadly interpreted, and that in the general economic standpoint the native reserves should gain as a result of the expenditure, and that the benefit should not go into private pockets. In most forms of native tenure nothing is easier than that, because the land is not held by individuals and there is no question of an individual profiting at the expense of the community. It is the community as a whole which is affected. Therefore, the problem is very much simpler in the case of native agricultural holders, as compared with individualist and capitalist agricultural planters. I think the Chancellor of the
Duchy will find, on reflection, that an Amendment framed in such exceedingly-broad and general terms as the one now before the Committee could be reasonably accepted and applied to the broad general advantage of the public revenue. I hope that he will keep an eye on the possibility of framing an Amendment so as to render the matter administratively simple.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Perhaps it may facilitate matters if I tell my hon. Friends at once, although it is not strictly relevant to this part of the Bill, that I have drafted words for an Amendment, to be inserted at a later stage, which I hope will cover the point raised by my hon. Friend, and I trust will also be acceptable to hon. Members opposite. If the words which I shall suggest do not cover the point raised by my hon. Friend, it will be open to him on the Report stage to reopen the matter. As my hon. Friend has, quite rightly, pointed out, in many cases, in most cases, the land is owned by the Government. In the case of Kenya, for instance, there is an arrangement by which land is leased to settlers for a term of 30 years, and the rent which they are paying comes under review at the end of that period. Therefore, although it is true that considerable increases in land values can take place for some years, yet in the end the benefit is bound to accrue to the community when the leases in question come under review. I hope that the whole of this question will be met by the words which I shall suggest later, but if my hon. Friend thinks that they are not satisfactory, we can discuss the matter again on the Report stage.

Earl WINTERTON: I think it necessary at this point to utter a word of warning and a word of advice, if I may be permitted to do so, to the hon. Baronet. We are prepared on this side of the House to assist him in every possible way in getting this Bill through. We have done that so far this afternoon. My hon. and gallant Friend has already appealed to the hon. Member opposite to withdraw his Amendment. We are not going to be unreasonable. We realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy must do his best to meet the views of his own supporters to a certain extent, but, if
he thinks that this Bill is going to be made the battleground for fighting out the subject of land values, he is very much mistaken.

Sir O. MOSLEY: No.

Earl WINTERTON: I am glad to hear that, because if we are to deal with the question of land values in the way suggested by this Amendment, it will raise a much bigger issue, and the whole Bill might be in jeopardy. I know from my personal experience in Kenya that there are leases such as those to which the Chancellor of the Duchy has referred, and the holders of those leases would not be entitled to protest if, at the end of 30 years, it was found that the general value of land had risen so much in Kenya that they were asked to pay higher rents. But that is quite a different point from the point raised by the Amendment. The hon. Member below the Gangway, in a rather uninstructed speech, dealt with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe, but I do not think that he disposed of it in the slightest degree.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the Noble Lord referring to me?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not dealing with the hon. Member, who is always very vocal. I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman who sits below him, the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton). That hon. Member did not in the least dispose of the point which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend. The point made by the hon. Member for Elland was based on the question, who owns this land; but the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, in speaking on the subject of the hut tax, was this, and I am sure that the representative of the Government will be the first to agree with it, that there would be not only great administrative difficulties, but you might have very serious feeling aroused amongst the native population, if you went to these same natives, these indigenous Africans—to use a term which I hope will become more common—and you said to them: "The Government have carried out what they regard as improvements, and, therefore, we propose—

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Put your point, Winterton, and do not be so patronising.

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member does not know how to behave himself, perhaps he will kindly leave the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the only person who should suggest that is the Chairman.

Earl WINTERTON: Might I, on a point of Order, call your attention to the exceedingly offensive interruption by the hon. Member.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite agree that the hon. Member made an interruption which he ought not to have made.

Mr. BROWN: On a point of Order. Will you inform me whether there is any constitutional way open to an hon. Member of this House to prevent the offensive patronage of the Noble Lord?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is one way not to do it, and that is, not to refer to an hon. Member of this House by name.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Noble Lord was rather offensive to me. At any rate, I have not been very vocal for the last four or five weeks, not nearly so vocal as he has been. If I am vocal, I can keep as much to the point as the Noble Lord. It is exceedingly offensive that he should make remarks of that description. As a matter of fact, it seems to have become the practice of the Conservative party to be as offensive as they possibly can, perhaps because they are very sore at having lost the General Election.

Earl WINTERTON: The point that I was making when these interventions occurred, was that I did not think the hon. Member below the gangway had disposed of the point that was made by my hon. and gallant Friend. What my hon. and gallant Friend said, was that where you have a system of native tenure, such as you have in Africa, it would be almost impossible to apply the principle which the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) have so much at heart. Far be it from me to sneer at the views so sincerely held; but I think it
would be impossible to carry them out. The hon. Member for Elland endeavoured to dispose of my hon. and gallant Friend's point by saying that in many parts of Africa there was communal tenure. That is true, but it is not as extensive as he thinks. There is individual tenure by indigenous Africans, also. The hon. Member has experience of these things and he must know that there is no subject on which the opinion of the indigenous Africans is so susceptible as that of taxation, either by means of a hut tax, or in any other way.
Assuming that certain operations were carried out, and certain improvements effected. Let us submit, for the sake of argument, that certain improvements had been effected by the Government, such as reclamation, drainage, and works of that kind and, as a result of the adoption of this Amendment, it was held that there had been an increase in the purchase price or the letting value of the land, and some Government official went to these indigenous Africans, and said to them, "We hold that the value of your land"—it is not laid down in the Amendment how this value: s to be arrived at—"the purchase price and the letting value has been improved through the action of the Government. Instead of you paying a hut tax of 10s. or 12s. a, year, you shall pay a hut tax of 15s. instead of 10s., and a tax of £1 instead of 12s." In that case, it does not make the slightest difference whether the land is held by one indigenous African or by the village community. They would be taxed in exactly the same way.
When the hon. Member talks about communal ownership, what he really means is that a group of people in a village, perhaps 30 or 40 Africans, hold the cultivated land in common; they hold grazing and agricultural land in common. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all the land in the village is held in common by the natives. It does not make the slightest difference whether you are taxing one individual African or 30. Whether you tax those 30 persons as a community, or whether you tax them as individuals, you will cause exactly the same sense of ill-feeling. I am speaking from my own knowledge and experience, and I cannot conceive anything that would be more dangerous and more unsettling— the late Under-Secretary of State for the
Colonies will agree with me in this—to these people than to feel that their land, which they value above everything else—their regard for their land is only equalled by the regard of the French peasant for his land—their native reserves, are subject to the condition that they never know when the Government will come along and carry out irrigation and reclamation schemes which may result in increasing the purchase price or the letting value of the land and, therefore, they must pay more tax. That would be a most serious thing. When the Chancellor of the Duchy says that he will give consideration to some of the points raised by his supporters, I do sincerely beg of him not for a moment to accept a proposal which would have disastrous results.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord is no doubt aware of the conditions in India and must know that when land drainage or reclamation work is carried out that the cost is raised by increased revenue from the people who use the irrigated land. It is a familiar policy over the whole of India, and when he says that it is an impossible policy then all I can say is, that in India, which he has ruled for the last 10 years, it is the universal practice when dams are laid and irrigation laid on to the land for rents to be raised on the increased value due to the water supply. It is a common form in India and also in the Sudan. When a Government carries out irrigation works the normal thing is to increase rents to the people using the water. The Noble Lord perhaps does not know East Africa quite so well, but in Nigeria all the land cultivated by the peasants belongs to the State and they pay a yearly rent which varies with the value of the land. Does the late Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies shake his head?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, I do.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would call his attention to the Native Rights Proclamation Act, which we carried some 20 years ago, under which all land in Northern Nigeria is held under the Crown by variable rents depending on valuation, exactly as we want to have in this Amendment. In East Africa we also impose the Nigeria system upon
Tanganyika. There the native owns the land subject to a variable rent, or, shall I say, owns it subject to a variable tax.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The point is this, that the variations in rentals, only take place at long intervals; in Tanganyika it is 66 years, and that is quite a different thing to taking power to immediately raise land taxes on this agricultural land.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I believe in Nigeria it is once every seven years, and in Tanganyika, although he and I recommended that it should be once in seven years, it is once in 33 years.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not done in Nigeria.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, because the land does not change in value, but we have taken power in the Ordinance to do it, and we want the same power here so that the people will have the value of any reclamation, schemes. It is the normal practice in almost every part of the Empire and ought to be certainly embodied in this Bill where drainage and reclamation work is carried out.

Commander WILLIAMS: If I understood my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for West Sussex (Earl Winter-ton), he does not object to some increase from time to time as the land increases in value, but that is a wholly different thing to what is laid down in this Amendment. The point in the Amendment is that whatever the increase and any increase, which means all increases, must be taken away from the indigenous occupier of the land. Long before he has benefited in any way he is to be taxed in this manner. In a civilised country like ours with people of various kinds of thought and curious ideas, you can occasionally put these curious ideas into practice and nothing much will Happen, but these people will not understand these intricate taxes which will take vast sums of money out of their pockets without their knowing what it is for, and before they have profited at all. Surely the hon. Member does not mean that by his Amendment. Surely the object of the Amendment, to initiate this or that, or the other idea—

Mr. MacLAREN: I should like to tell the hon. and gallant Member that he is mistaken, and I hope that he will believe
me when I say that I am the last person in this House to take an opportunity for advancing a "stunt." The Amendment has been put down genuinely and seriously and not merely with the idea of discussing the question of land values.

Commander WILLIAMS: I absolutely and entirely accept the explanation of the hon. Member. We all know that this is a matter very dear to the heart, and that he would never do anything but what was genuine. I am sorry indeed if I have imputed motives to him. I would not do that to any hon. Member, and certainly not to the hon. Member, who quite thoroughly believes in his point of view on the subject. Having apologised as fully as I can, and I am sure he will accept it, let me say this, that it is very unfortunate that these things, very carefully thought out, get on the Order Paper. I appeal to hon. Members opposite. We on these benches realise that there is some good in this Bill and we want to get away from these little sidelines to the really important Amendments of the Order Paper. I hope hon. Members who have taken practically the whole of the afternoon so far will withdraw the Amendment so that we can get on to the really important part of the Bill; that is the constructive effort which is made.

Mr. MacLAREN: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given a promise, and in view of that promise I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. If, however, his Amendment does not fulfil my desire, then I reserve my right on the Report stage to discuss the question again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
(h) The production, distribution, and supply of electricity.
This is intended to supply what is an apparent omission, and if it is accepted by the Government then I need not occupy the time of the Committee with any arguments.

Mr. REMER: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I gave notice of a manuscript Amendment in line 7—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I called on several hon. Members but no one rose.

Mr. REMER: I thought the Amendment with which the Committee has just dealt was an Amendment to line 5.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is the hon. Member's own fault that he did not rise to move his Amendment.

Sir O. MOSLEY: It may be held that the words of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) are covered by the Bill, but it is one of those points upon which there is a slight doubt, and therefore I think it would be helpful to have these words inserted. I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
(k) The promotion of public health.
This manuscript Amendment meets the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it also goes a very long way towards meeting the point of the Amendment supported by several hon. Members on this side of the House, to insert the words:
promoting the education and health of the native community by the building of schools and hospitals.
It may be convenient to discuss these Amendments together, because they really deal with the same thing, and if I am in order I will explain why I think the words of my Amendment are more appropriate than the words of the Amendment of my hon. Friends. In the first place, the Amendment of my hon. Friends contains the rather unfortunate expression "native community," and although neither they nor other hon. Members in the House would in the least object to being called natives of England there are people who object to being called natives of a territory which they inhabit. In addition the Amendment of hon. Members deals not only with health but with education, and education does not really fall within the scope of this Bill. The Bill is to develop the Colonies agriculturally and industrially and to provide employment in this country. Education is a most important matter, but it falls under the ordinary colonial administration, and if we are deficient in that respect
pressure on the colonial administration can achieve the end which my hon. Friends desire.

Lord E. PERCY: I suppose paragraph (i), the promotion of scientific research, etc., will be included.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Technical education, in so far as it relates to industry, is not excluded from the scope of the Bill, but the words of the Amendment of my hon. Friends are altogether too wide. I did not include in my Amendment any words which specifically relate to the public health of the indigenous inhabitants for several reasons. Not only would white settlers be excluded, but Indian settlers and Arabs would also be excluded, and we want to give the widest application to the question of public health. Indigenous inhabitants will be included in the words of my Amendment, and all of the forms of settlers will also be included. I hope my hon. Friends on both sides of the House will be satisfied with my Amendment which definitely establishes the principle of public health.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "in whole or in part."
There is a consequential Amendment to insert words which will provide that half interest be paid instead of the whole interest. It does seem to me that we are going a bit far in paying the whole of the interest on any loan for 10 years instead of asking the colony concerned to pay that interest. At the present time, on nearly all the loans that the Colonies raise, the Colonies pay interest at once, so that there is no burden on the British taxpayer. It is true that some years ago, for certain specific loans in Kenya, we took the charge upon our own shoulders of paying the interest, but it was for a period of only five years, if my memory serves me right, or it may have been for only two years. In this Bill we are taking the burden of the whole interest for 10 years. Observe what that means? It means that practically half of the money is advanced as a free gift to the colony at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. That seems to me to be an enormous step in advance of anything that has been done before. I call in aid the speech of my right hon. Friend the
Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday last. My right hon. Friend referred to half the interest being paid for 10 years. I do not know whether he meant that that was the average, but I think we might put a provision in the Bill that half the interest for 10 years should be the limit of what the British taxpayer has to find.
In this Bill and in other Bills that we are passing, I think that we are rather running away from the old Treasury traditions of this country. I ask the Committee to remember that the Treasury has not a bottomless purse, and that all these schemes for making work by taking money from some people and spending it in employing people in Africa or in England, merely mean that the people from whom you take the money have not got that money to spend in employing people to make the things that they want. I am sorry to go back to this old-fashioned but still correct political economy. We should be very cautious about engaging in purely wild-cat schemes with the idea that we are improving employment in this country, when, as a matter of fact, we are endangering employment here and adopting unsound finance. But there is more than that. If you make all these schemes so very attractive to borrowers, you will have an enormous number of borrowers in the market. The Colonial Office and the Committee will be surrounded by various Colonies and private interests, as in the case of die Zambesi Bridge, begging for money on these cheap terms. The competition of the different borrowers will he enormous. I think that it is putting a very dangerous weapon into the hands of the Committee or the Colonial Office to give them the power of deciding between two Colonies or a number of private interests as to who is to get this great present. If Kenya has to compete with Tanganyika it will mean that each Governor will be at the Committee or at the Colonial Office trying to get the £1,000,000 a year for his own colony.

Lord E. PERCY: £1,000,000 is the maximum.

Colonel WEDGWOOO: If there is a gift of £1,000,000 going as a maximum, you may be certain that there will be a great number of people who can make use of that £1,000,000, and the two Governors will be competing for it. You are bound
to have heartburning and jealousy. For us to pay the whole of the interest for 10 years, although a business may start paying its way in five years, seems to me rather a startling fact, and I feel as though I had got into rather a new world. I hope that there are enough economists and lovers of the Treasury present to press the Government to reduce this maximum gift by one-half and to make half the interest for 10 years the maximum that can be given. I would draw attention to a leading article in the "Times" to-day which deals with this very danger.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The purpose of the Amendment is to restrict the Government in developing the objects which it has before it. My right hon. Friend said that he was speaking from the standpoint of a sound and ordered economist. He was, but some years behind the times. The real trouble about this Bill, in the mind of my right hon. Friend, is that a Measure which is warmly supported from the benches opposite is a little too Socialistic for him. Here we have the State by direct action undertaking a very big concern. We have substantial grants and advances made by the community for the development of these territories under the auspices of the State. All this is precisely that communal activity and drive which the individualist of the last century so strongly objected to, and my right hon. Friend has ever in this House been one of the most strenuous and able advocates of that individualist system upon which the conditions in this country nearly a century ago were built up. Really every argument of his has been in support of those sound and orthodox economic principles. May I appeal to him? If the sums to be spent on these schemes pass a business committee, if they pass the Treasury officials, will they really be such wild-cat schemes that my right hon. Friend cannot support them? Are our business Committee and our Treasury people such irresponsible folk or so void of any sense that we cannot entrust them to spend even so small a sum as £1,000,000 a year in the promotion of Colonial development? No, Sir. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to restrict developments which on principle my right hon. Friend strongly dislikes. As he said, he feels that he has got into a new world. I think he is right. It is
a world in which the State and the community are looking after themselves.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am rather surprised at the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. If we dare to stand up and defend the rights of natives, we are told that we are out of date, or, in this case that we are holding economic views that are 50 years old. The Ten Commandments are much older than that, but they are still true. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that a little training in Scottish logic would help him in these matters. Instead of this being Socialism I have a strong suspicion, from the evidence of the attitude of the Front Bench opposite on land values, that it is not so much a scheme for watering the Colonies for the benefit of the Socialist community in Tanganyika or Timbuctoo, but that there are vested interests which stand to gain from the free interest guaranteed for 10 years. I do not mind whether the Bill provides for payment of interest for 10 years or even 15 years as long as anything that comes out of the growth of land value as a result of this expenditure of public money comes back to the community.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
This is practically the same Amendment, and I do not propose to detain the Committee by discussing it at any length. I would merely say that the last Labour Government made it five years. This Government makes it' 10 years. I suppose the next Labour Government, or perhaps the next Conservative Government, will make it 20 years. This may be Socialism, but it is also very good Conservatism for Conservative interests.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "(including surveys)."
I move this Amendment in order to raise a question of drafting. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will remember that the ex-Under-Secretary for the Colonies during the general Debate raised the point that these words might
have a limiting effect. I myself should have thought that the words
any other means which appear calculated to achieve the purpose aforesaid
would be quite enough and would include surveys without their special mention. I am afraid that the mention of these words may have the effect of limiting these operations to something which is of the nature of a survey, and I feel sure that such is not the object of the Sub-section and not the desire of this Committee. Therefore, I move this Amendment in order to ask whether the hon. Baronet has considered this point and whether he is, in fact, satisfied with the present drafting of the Sub-section in this respect.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I have looked into the matter and consulted the draftsman, and I agree with the view which the mover of the Amendment takes. Anyhow, a reference to surveys would be more appropriate in another part of the Bill, and it is proposed to move these words from this part of the Bill and insert them elsewhere in the Bill. Possibly the best procedure would be for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and put it down for the Report stage, and I will then put down an Amendment to insert the words in another part of the Bill.

Captain BOURNE: Why not leave them out now?

Sir O. MOSLEY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to proceed with his Amendment now, I will move on the Report stage for the insertion of these words elsewhere in the Bill. That, possibly, would be the more convenient course.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. MORGAN: I beg to move in page 2, line 28, after the word "means" to insert the words "including settling people on the land."
I move this Amendment in order to make sure that in those Colonies where there is no land available for the native-born population, opportunities should be afforded for those individuals to settle on the land, either by means of lease or letting. The conditions in the Colonies vary. In some Colonies there are native reserves and therefore there
is land available for the native-born population but I am thinking of Colonies where no land is available for the native-born population, most of the land being held by settlers in large estates. In such cases, the native-born population have no opportunities of getting land and have to work as labourers on the estates. I want them to have the opportunity of getting leases of land and being able to work small holdings of five, 10, 15 or 20 acres. It would lead to the betterment of the local population in certain areas—I have in mind especially a certain island—and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I think the insertion of any words here would be inappropriate for the reasons which led me to accept the last Amendment. If it is desirable to insert any such words, it would be better to select another part of the Bill in which to do so. On the merits of the words proposed in the Amendment I would only say that my hon. Friend is really trying, within the scope of a Bill which deals with Colonial development and with unemployment in this country, to insert a matter which is, quite evidently, a subject of general Colonial Office administration. I cannot, within this ad hoc Bill, devoted to two quite clear purposes, accept or embody the whole great range of possible Colonial developments which must come under the survey of the Colonial Office. The point which my hon. Friend has made can be raised with great force on the Colonial Office Vote, and to some extent the purposes which he has in view are actually met in the Bill. In Sub-section (1 a), for instance, there is a reference to the preparation of agricultural produce for the market, and under some of the other Sub-sections of the Bill something might be done in this direction, but I am not going to suggest to my hon. Friend that the full purposes of his Amendment can be met under this Bill because quite obviously that cannot be done. Something can be done to assist the people whom he has mentioned, but it clearly cannot come within the scope of a Bill the purposes of which are very definitely limited.

Dr. MORGAN: Doubtless the authorities who are in charge of the Bill know its scope better than I do, but I thought that its object was not only Colonial
development, but also the stimulation of trade and employment in this country. If you start wealth distribution in the Colonies among those who have, at present, no opportunities of getting on to the land it will increase the trade of the Colony and will increase the importation of goods into that Colony from Great Britain, thus assisting trade here. It seems to be a suitable Amendment which might be accepted and I hope the hon. Baronet will see his way, at a later stage, to insert some phrase in the Bill to meet this reasonable request.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I venture to ask the hon. Baronet if he is not in error in saying that this proposal could not properly be brought within the scope of the Bill. Sub-section (1 a), for example, refers to encouraging the preparation of agricultural produce for the market and the adoption of improved machinery, and Sub-section (1 f) refers to the reclamation, drainage and irrigation of land. Are we to understand that we are spending money to make things more profitable for the people already in these Colonies, and to enable them to become prosperous, but are ruling out the possibility of unemployed people going from this country to the Colonies and there becoming prosperous? The interpretation which the hon. Baronet puts upon the Amendment would indicate that we are thinking solely of the prosperity of existing colonists. In the Bill we have already a reference to the reclamation of land. For what are we going to reclaim land, if not to put people upon it? We have already in the Bill the possibility of money being spent on mass colonisation—on getting people, not as individuals but in bodies, to go out to places like the parts of the highlands in Tanganyika which have not been settled and where there is land on which white people might settle. I would like to see some of this money devoted to equipping these people and establishing them on land where they might add to the prosperity of the community there where directly relieving unemployment here. Unemployment can be reduced in all sorts of ways—among other ways, I suppose, by ordering goods here instead of ordering them elsewhere—but obviously you reduce unemployment, if people who are now unemployed here become useful productive workers in the
Colonies. I would like to see a part of these monies applied directly to creating new successful productive workers in the Colonies.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just made a very extraordinary speech. He wants this money used for the promotion of white settlement in East Africa. There is already ample money under the Overseas Settlement Act for the assistance of migration within the Empire and the essential thing to be considered here is equipping the existing population in these Colonies. Whatever the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may say it is extremely expensive to settle right away in the heart of Africa a European, and particularly an unemployed European, with no knowledge of tropical agriculture and no previous experience in the management of African labour. It would probably cost £1,000 at least to do that. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has advanced a very surprising theory in suggesting that money which will be required to promote the development of pubic utility services—for that is the main object in view here—should be diverted to the purposes of overseas settlement.

Dr. MORGAN: This is not meeting my point. The discussion has now gone round to the settlement of white migrants from this country, but my Amendment was devoted to the case of the native-born population in places where land is not available for them. I can give numerous cases of Colonies where there is no land available for the native-born population, and I have in mind an island in the West Indies where white settlers have bought up all the land. In Trinidad there are some Crown lands mostly held under licence by oil companies, but in other islands there is no land available for the natives. I want the native-born population to have a chance to get on to the land and to grow their native produce, and if you arrange for the marketing of that produce, you will be increasing the consumption of British goods and increasing trade and employment in this country.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
(m) "The marketing of British manufactured goods.
7.0 p.m.
This raises an issue which I raised on the Financial Resolution and to which I received no reply. There has been for a long time in the textile and other manufacturing centres of this country a feeling that the Empire Marketing Board and this Development Fund should apply equally to manufactured articles instead of being as at present limited to agricultural produce. I move this Amendment, because I believe there should be the widest possible opportunity for advertising and marketing British manufactured goods in the same way that agricultural produce is advertised by the Empire Marketing Board in this country. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

Sir O. MOSLEY: This is also an Amendment which goes beyond the scope of the Bill. We cannot do everything, however good the suggestion may be, in one Bill. This Bill really relates to the development of agriculture and industry in the Colonies, and in the process of that development we assist in the problem of unemployment by securing orders for our own products. To embark on all these suggestions, admirable as they are in themselves, would reduce the Bill to a sorry spectacle. I hope the hon. Member will realise the limitations of the Bill and withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I was afraid I would get that answer, but I hope the hon. Baronet will remember the point and on some future occasion find means of accomplishing what I have proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after the word "may," to insert the words "subject as hereinafter provided."
The Amendment which I am now moving merely governs a longer Amendment that follows, and it would perhaps be convenient if we were permitted to discuss now the longer Amendment. If this Amendment be carried, I shall subsequently move to insert, at the end of line 37, the following words:
Provided that the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour are observed in the execution of all works, the cost of which is to be defrayed
in whole or in part out of the advance, and the Treasury, in making such advance, shall have regard to the desirability of securing as far as possible that the colony or territory, to the Government of which the advance is made, shall participate in any increase in values directly attributable to the advance.
I am particularly anxious that this should be an agreed Bill. We have had on the whole such a very pleasant passage that I shall strive to draw together both sides of the House in agreement on an Amendment of this nature which covers points raised not only by hon. Members behind me but also to some extent by hon. Members on the benches opposite. It is perfectly clear what are the two main considerations to which my suggested! Amendment relates. In the first place, we want to ensure by statutory authority that the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that fair conditions of labour are observed. I know very well that hon. Members opposite would not dissent from such a measure. In fact, it is ordinary Colonial Office practice to impose such a condition, and the only novelty is that we are embodying it in the Bill. The second half of the Amendment may give rise to more interest, but I do not think hon. Members opposite will object to the words which I have read. Their purpose is, within the widest possible elasticity of administration, to secure as far as is possible for the community concerned the advantage of any communal betterment which may accrue from the expenditure of State money. Earlier I asked my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment which laid down specific methods by which this object should be achieved. Here, in far more general terms giving a wider latitude in administration, I am striving to secure a purpose, from which no hon. Members, I think, will dissent—that, so far as it can be done within existing legislation and practice and without the disruption of the whole of the relationships on which this great administration rests, we shall strive to secure for the community any advantages that may accrue from the expenditure of public money and strive as far as possible to exclude merely profiteering interests arising from the expenditure of public money. In broad principle, I do not think there can be any great difference between us upon this score, and I hope that the words I have proposed may be
acceptable as an equitable solution of the question under the two heads of labour conditions and of reserving to the community in question the advantages of the expenditure of public money which is proposed in this Bill.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Baronet will realise that it is rather difficult to deal with an important Amendment of this kind when it is only in manuscript. I may say at once that we on this side of the House have no objection whatever to the first part of the Amendment. When we come to the second part, there are one or two comments which I would make. In the first place, the Committee will observe that it is the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is to satisfy himself about the labour conditions, but it is the Treasury who are to satisfy themselves about the participation of the Colonial Governments in the increase of value. It has been quite clearly pointed out in preceding Debates on this subject that obtaining for a Colonial Government a share in the increased value is a political question of the greatest delicacy fraught with the most far-reaching consequences if it means the taxation of African village communities. It is a political question of Colonial administration. It is not a question of finance for the Treasury to decide. That is what strikes one at first blush.
Secondly, I would ask whether the Government are quite sure that, if these words are inserted, the Treasury is not to give preference to those projects where, in the opinion of the Colonial Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Colonial Government can obtain a substantial share in the increased value, and that other cases, where the increased value directly resulting accrues to African communities, to lands reserved for the Africans, where it is more difficult and highly doubtful whether the State ought to increase the taxation because of the increased values, shall be discriminated against. In consequence, it is very possible that preference will be given to those schemes which will benefit the white settler and that discrimination will be exercised against the schemes which will benefit the African community. These are very serious questions. The Committee will observe that I have not touched for one moment upon the abstract question of land values. I
have dealt purely with the merits of the Amendment in connection with the Bill itself and its operation in African Governments. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Duchy that he should put this Amendment down for the Report stage when we could really look into it and make observations on it and that he should not press it now. I would also suggest that, when he puts it down on Report stage, the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be substituted for the Treasury.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I should like to express very great appreciation of the Amendment which has been moved from the Front Bench. I and a number of others had Amendments down on the Paper which dealt with these subjects. It is quite likely that the form of words which has been read will meet our points in this respect, but I would submit to the Minister whether it is not possible to include more definite words than those which he has read. He has quoted words which were in previous Measures. Since then there has been drawn up a definition of fair conditions of labour with the support both of the employers and of the Government representatives at the International Labour Office, which I suggest would be the fairest form of words to introduce into this Amendment. The definition is as follows:
At rates not less than those prevailing either in the area of work or the district of recruitment, whichever is the higher.
The employers' representatives and the Government representatives both accepted that form of words in the questionnaire issued by the International Labour Office on this subject. I submit very strongly to the hon. Baronet whether it might not be possible to Include that form of words in his Amendment. So far as the passing to the community of the increased values of land which result from these schemes is concerned, I will reserve comment until I see the Amendment on the paper. I welcome the acceptance of the principle, but I am a little doubtful whether the form of words is sufficiently firm to meet our desires.

Mr. MANDER: I understand that this Amendment is put forward as an alternative to some Amendments on the Paper with reference to forced labour. I have one handed in myself, which would prevent
any of the money under this Bill being used for schemes where any forced labour was involved.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I should like to make it clear, if the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him, that I did not mean that, so far as that part of my Amendment relating to forced labour is concernod. I should not move that, because I shall hope to do so when the time comes.

Mr. MANDER: Then I shall reserve my remarks on that question until my Amendment comes on, which I think will be earlier than that of the hon. Member opposite.

Commander WILLIAMS: An appeal was made that this Amendment should be placed on the Paper for the Report stage. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy accept that suggestion?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I shall be very glad, working under the pressure which is necessary in the case of improvised legislation, if I am so fortunate as to ascertain the general views of the Committee, but I think I am correct in saying that something on the lines of my Amendment, subject to modifications which hon. and right hon. Members opposite may suggest, might be acceptable to them, while I understand that my hon. Friend behind me would prefer something nearer akin to his own wording on the labour question, if he can have it. I will certainly look into those points which have been raised and try to put down a common denominator Amendment before the Report stage, in the hope that we may be able to carry through an agreed Amendment to meet all points of view, which will be in keeping with the discussions which we have had so far. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after the word "conditions," to insert the words
as are hereinafter specified or.
Since this is a preliminary, textual Amendment to the longer Amendment in my name, and those of other hon. Members, which is at the bottom of the page on the Order Paper—in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
The Treasury shall make grants or loans under this section only in cases where it is satisfied that the schemes to which the grants or loans will be applied do not involve—
(a) the employment of labour at rates of wages or on conditions of labour worse than the standard rates and conditions prevailing in the district;
(b) any work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily;
(c) the employment of the labour of children under the age of 12 years.
The Treasury shall also be satisfied, prior to making grants or loans under this section, that any increase in the value of land arising from the use of such grants or loans will accrue to the Government of the colony concerned; that in the case of East African territories at least two-thirds of each grant or loan under this section will be spent in native reserves: and that where a grant or loan under this section is used to assist limited liability company the Government of the colory concerned shall acquire an equitable measure of control of the limited liability company in question by the appointment of directors on the board of the company"—
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt now with the principles involved in that longer Amendment.

Mr. MANDER: On a point of Order. My Amendment covers the same point in reference to forced labour, and as it comes earlier than that of the hon. Member opposite, I submit that an opportunity should be given to me to put the case on forced labour first.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) comes after the word "fit," in line 34, whereas that of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) comes after the word "conditions," which is earlier in the same line.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I am only following the precedent which was set by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench in this matter. If hon. Members will look at my longer Amendment, they will see the substantial principles which are involved in this preliminary Amendment. The Front Bench has already met us very largely so far as the employment of labour at certain rates of wages and with certain conditions of labour is concerned, but they have not met us so far as the
prohibition of forced labour and of child labour is concerned. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, definitely stated that it was not the intention of the Government that any degree of compulsion should be brought to bear on the native populations to furnish the labour necessary for the carrying out of any schemes under the Bill, and I hope very much that that intention, which was expressed in speech, will be accepted by the Government in the actual form of the Bill. The second point is the prohibition of child labour under the age of 12 years. As I said to the House yesterday, I have evidence that children are now employed on public works under that age, and we consider very strongly—those of us who are associated with this Amendment—that under these schemes at least the employment of child labour under 12 years of age should be absolutely abolished.
The next point, in regard to the increased value of land, has been accepted in principle by the Government, and we will await the form of words which they propose on the Report stage, but I want to emphasise the point referred to in that part, of our Amendment in which we ask that at least two-thirds of each grant or loan, so far as East African territories are concerned, shall be spent in native reserves. The Under-Secretary of State suggested that that was not necessary, but we have the experience of Kenya at present, where branch railways have in recent months been extended to the white settlement areas at and beyond Nyeri to Solai and to Kitale, while an enormous population of agricultural Africans round Mumias is totally devoid of railway communication, as well a" the whole of South Kavirondo. I want to suggest very strongly that these railway communications should be developed where the bulk of the population is, and that is in the native reserves. Lastly, we include the principle that where State grants or loans are made, it is the right of the State to secure a control proportionate to the financial assistance which is given. That has been met in the hopes which have been held out so far as the Zambesi Bridge is concerned, but we desire to see that principle laid down as a general rule in this Bill.

Mr. MANDER: My Amendment was somewhat less ambitious than that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I wish to preclude any of the money provided under this Bill being used in connection with schemes where any forced labour at all is employed. I understand, from what was said by the Under-Secretary of State yesterday, that there is no intention of doing anything of the kind, and that no forced labour will be used in these schemes, but it is important that that should be stated in black and white in the terms of the Bill itself. In order to point out how far-reaching this question is, I would like to read to the Committee a few words from the Official Report of the International Labour Conference in its 12th Session at Geneva in 1929: It says:
The laws concerning forced labour for general public purposes in the British East African Dependencies of Kenya, Nyasa-land, Tanganyika Territory, Uganda, and Zanzibar are, in many respects, similar.
It goes on to describe a few examples. Here is one from Kenya:
Public works.—Orders may be given for the providing of forced labour for work on the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges; water-works, railways, Government buildings, harbour works, wharves, piers, telegraph and telephone systems, and such other work of a public nature provided for out of public moneys as the Governor may, with the prior approval of the Secretary of State, declare to be a work of public nature.
The other example is that of Uganda and is as follows:
Public works.—Forced labour is permitted in the building of railways, the making or repairing of roads, bridges and telegraphs, the building or repairing of public buildings, and services necessary for the maintenance of public health.
I do not know if there is anything left. It seems to me very far-reaching and very sweeping, and I submit to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that he should consider most carefully whether he cannot, in the agreed Amendment at which he is trying to arrive, insert words definitely forbidding the use of forced labour in connection with these schemes. If they are not put in, there will be a very great temptation to those out there to make use of forced labour, in view of the fact that I believe they can do very little without the use of forced labour. I appeal to the hon. Baronet carefully to consider whether he cannot meet our
views and those of the hon. Members behind him on this very important matter.

Mr. AMERY: I am sure there is no essential difference between the two sides of the Committee in regard to the standard of administration which we wish to see established in any of our Colonies or Protectorates but I wish to submit for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Duchy that this is not a Bill for the better administration of our Colonial dependencies. Such a question as that of forced labour is one where the Powers concerned are discussing the matter, and have discussed if, at Geneva, and where it is the primary duty of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and of the Governors of all the various Colonies to carry out the principles agreed upon in the whole of their administration, and at the same time with due consideration of local conditions. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) quoted a statement which would imply that the field for the use of forced labour in Kenya and Uganda is very wide. It is, in theory, but in fact there has been no use of forced labour in either of those territories for a considerable time past. On the other hand, if you take the peculiar circumstances of a Colony like Sierra Leone, where there are no white settlers, but where the whole tribal conditions cause a certain amount of forced labour in the construction of roads to be recognised by the people themselves, and probably by Geneva, as convenient, there surely the right thing is for the Governor of that territory to interpret the principles laid down by Geneva in accordance with local conditions. But for us to lay down our particular version of the Geneva conditions and place it in this Bill, which is meant for an entirely different purpose, and make it the rigid test by which any finance can be given, seems to me to mix up and confuse two entirely different objects.
The same applies to such questions as the employment of the labour of children. There are in certain parts conditions where the workers on roads bring their children with them. That may or may not be a good thing—I am not arguing the merits of it—but it is a thing which the Governments of the Colonies should
determine on its merits, and which we ought not to pre-judge as a condition of giving assistance to those Governments; and I think the same applies really—again I do not argue the merits—to these questions of land values and limited liability companies. Surely this House ought, on this issue, to confine itself to the main principle of this Bill, which is to promote the development of the Colonies for which we have responsibility, and in connection with that, incidentally, also to promote the trade and industry of this country. Side by side with that it is the responsibility of this House and of the Secretary of State to watch over the various Colonial Governments and to see that the principles which we wish to see maintained in our Government in every part of the British Empire shall be effectively enforced as regards all labour and all development, and not merely as regards development which takes place incidental to Treasury help. This Amendment is also subject to the same difficulty which my right hon. Friend pointed cut in regard to the Amendment of he Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; it makes the Treasury a deciding factor in actual details of administration in a Colonial Dependency. That, I am convinced, is quite unworkable, and from that point of view I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will not accept this Amendment, but will meet hon. Members opposite by something of quite a general nature which would be a general guidance and instruction to the Colonial Office and to the Government;, concerned, and not attempt to intervene directly in the ordinary course of Colonial administration.

Mr. C. BUXTON: I should like to express very strong disagreement with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary. He seems to think that there is no necessity for making a provision against the possible use of forced labour or child labour in connection with work which may be initiated under this Bill. I do not know whether the objection which he has put forward to safeguards of this kind also applies to safeguards in regard to fair conditions of work. I do not know whether he draws a distinction between laying down the restriction as to fail-conditions of work and laying down a
condition in regard to forced labour and child labour. I do not see where the line is to be drawn. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Palestine and East African Loans Act in 1926, and in that Act there were provisions in regard to fair conditions of labour.

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps the hon. Member was out of the House when I stated on behalf of this side that we had no objection, and supported the proposal.

Mr. BUXTON: What I am asking is how the right hon. Gentleman, the late Colonial Secretary, draws a distinction between laying down this particular restriction as lo fair conditions of labour, which I understand he approves, and laying down conditions as to forced labour and child labour, which I understand he disapproves. I want to know why he approves the one thing and does not approve the other.

Mr. AMERY: A quite general guidance or indication to the Secretary of State may be used to express the general views of the House, but to go into a number of detailed points—and anyone who followed the investigations at Geneva knows how detailed and complicated these matters are—to go into details of administration, and to try to get through this Bill what you ought to get through the general survey and criticism and control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is what I object to. I am not differing on the merits from the hon. Member opposite, but the things which he wishes to be achieved ought to be done by the Secretary of State controlled by this House through the Colonial Estimates, and not brought into the framework of a Measure which is meant for an entirely different purpose.

Mr. BUXTON: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that so long as the provision is of a sufficiently vague and general character, it may be accepted, but as soon as it comes to anything really precise, to which you, can pin anybody down, he objects to it; otherwise, the distinction which he draws between a general limitation and a specific limitation seems to me to be very difficult to explain, and only leaves me more confused than ever. Forced and child labour are important general matters, just as much as fair conditions
of labour are. They are not specific definitions. If you get a specific definition of forced or child labour, I do not deny that you get into many complications; exactly the same thing applies to fair conditions of labour. If you define that specifically, and lay down that you have to have fenced machinery and so on, you get into complications, but all these cases seem to me very much of the same nature. I do not want to chop logic. I merely rise to urge that it is not merely a mistaken policy to lay down any conditions with regard to forced labour and child labour; it is also a dangerous policy, because it is not enough to say, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that forced labour and child labour will be provided for by a proper conduct of the administration of the country.
Forced labour and child labour are not merely processes which are in danger of arising at any one time as much as another, but they are processes which are in danger of arising in connection with the particular works which are provided for in this Bill. When you get work and enterprises stimulated and encouraged by this Bill, it is precisely at that moment that the supreme danger of forced labour and child labour arises. The terms suggested by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench covered the ground very adequately on the points with which they dealt, that is to say, fair conditions of work and the participation in increases of value; but I think that it is of the utmost importance that forced labour and child labour should be referred to as well. When forced labour is dealt with, we should not confine the restriction to forced labour in the sense of forced labour carried out by the central administration, but we should use terms which will also cover the local, communal forced labour, which is a matter of a quite different kind. I am not saying that we should simply prohibit the use of local, traditional, communal labour altogether; it is a thing which has its roots in history and local necessity, and I am quite willing to admit that you must have some broad general words which will not at all times prohibit a local community from going out and repairing roads, and cleaning out ditches, and things of that kind.
Some of the gravest abuses arise, not only in connection with forced labour by the central administration on a railway or something of that kind, but in connection with local communal forced labour, which is an old and traditional thing. It is utilised by the administration itself, and not merely ordered, according to the ancient traditional custom, by the head man of a village; it is often practically enforced upon that head man by the officials of the Government. Under the Native Authority Ordinance in Kenya, powers are given to the head men to order out the able bodied men on certain specific works, but in addition there is the power to go to the district officer to direct the head men to issue these orders. That may be used in some cases to produce results which are very deplorable, and a good deal of evidence has reached this country to show that in some of these cases you have not merely the able bodied men and women but very young children, called out under this local system of communal labour, and there are abuses which have to be provided against. I suggest that words should be found, not of a very concise character, but of a more or less general character, to specify forced labour, whether local or central.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should like to say a word as to the attitude to be adopted towards this Bill in regard to the question of including words dealing with forced labour. I am the first to recognise, and anybody who has been at the Colonial Office will recognise, that there is room for bringing the legislation of some of the colonies, protectorates and mandated territories more up-to-date in regard to the terms under which labour for various purposes may be secured by the administration. It is recognised that a good deal of the legislation is old and obsolete, and not put into practice. Some of it undoubtedly should be changed. It has not been done before because the International Labour Office some time ago gave notice that they wished this matter to be settled, as it should be settled, on an international basis. For at least two years, there have been various stages in the drawing up of an international convention to be applied to all colonies, protectorates and mandated territories, governing the conditions under which tribal labour should be used.
I hope that, as that convention is reaching its final stage, no attempt will be made in this Bill to pick out particular articles of the draft convention, and put them in piecemeal into a Bill of this kind, but that the matter will be dealt with, as it should be dealt with, by the Government of this country ratifying and putting into force the international convention when its terms are finally settled. That seems the only comprehensive and satisfactory way of dealing with the subject. We have been waiting two years for the final production of the Geneva work, and representatives of the Governments and of employers and employed, have been at Geneva going into these matters and doing this work.
May I say a word as to what I think would be the effect of the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). The sole effect would be that while every other dependency could get on without recourse to any form of communal labour, there would not be any possibility of any of this money being used in the protectorate of Sierra Leone, or in the Northern provinces of Nigeria. In both these eases, the people are in a state of civilisation where there are practically no wage earners over a large part of the undeveloped portions of that territory, and there are even places where there is not yet money, and where the whole population consists of a purely tribal peasantry living in very communistic and high socialistic conditions. All public services are invariably discharged by the form of farced labour, that is to say, the whole village turns out to do it, if there are villages there—in Sierra Leone admittedly there are villages—at any rate the people of the area perform the public services of their area. There are no European enterprises, they are living in primitive social conditions; for example, there are practically no roads. The only way in which anything can be done—work" of sanitation or the like—is to take the organisation as we find it, using the traditional communal spirit and organisation of the country, using their machinery. If there is a total prohibition of all attempts to use what is called in this House "forced labour" for these public works, there will be two areas of West Africa which will be effectually debarred from these benefits,
although we could make that prohibition in the case of all the more or less developed areas.

Sir O. MOSLEY: This has been a very useful discussion, which has enabled the Government to obtain a concensus of the opinion in the Committee. I suggest to the hon. Member that he should withdraw his Amendment now, and I will put down for the Report stage the Amendments which I have drafted in order to attempt to meet him, and I will see what can be done to meet the other points which have been raised from both sides.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I think the Government ought to know, so far as many of us are concerned, that our attitude towards this Measure will be determined by the extent to which we are met in this respect. We cannot possibly vote for schemes of public works, to be paid for out of British taxation, which are to employ either forced labour or child labour in the Colonies. In view of that I cannot see any possible means of reaching agreement with the hon. Gentlemen on the other side.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that my Amendment is also affected, I should like to say that I entirely agree with what hon. Members on the Government side have said. I very strongly dissent from the views expressed by hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I think it is fair to say of them that they are willing to go on with the works projected under this Bill by means of forced labour, whereas many of us on these benches think this Measure provides an opportunity for initiating reforms in this respect.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I have listened very carefully to every speech which has been made from this side. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton) has observed, in general terms the words which I have read to the House cover practically all the points which have been raised, but I will certainly examine those words again to see in what degree they can be made sufficiently specific to cover the points which have been raised. I suggest to my hon. Friends that they might at least await the wording which we can produce, as it is within their competence to move any Amendments they
like upon the Report stage. I shall do my very utmost to meet them, and I hope we shall be able to come to some agreement; but if we fail to do so, it is still open to them to take whatever steps they desire. I think two main points have Been made clear in this discussion. On the one hand, there is a determination on the part of the Committee, with which I entirely agree, to see that the expenditure of public money in any part of the world shall not be used for debauching the conditions of native labour, and I shall do my very utmost, by wording as precise as can be adduced, to safeguard that standpoint.
There is another point of view to which consideration must be attached. It is absolutely impossible for me, in an ad hoc Bill of this kind, to do all the work which' should be done, and no doubt will be done, by the Colonial Secretary. Hon. Members cannot expect the Government, in a Bill of this kind, to reform the whole great range of abuses which have their roots deep in those Colonial countries. It is impossible to cover that whole range in one Bill promoted for an entirely different purpose. I think we can get some measure of agreement on some points. We can get agreement on the two main principles that labour conditions must be safeguarded when public money is provided for these works, but at the same time it will be recognised, in fairness I think, that it is impossible to go into every detail of Colonial Office administration in a matter such as this. I can assure my hon. Friends that I shall do my very utmost to meet all the desires they have expressed in regard to these views, which we have held in common.

Mr. BROCKWAY: On that understanding, I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps I may express the very great appreciation of myself, and I am sure of my colleagues associated with me in this matter, of the way in which the Front Bench has dealt with the points which are before them, and I hope there was no impression that we did not feel such appreciation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after the word "fit," to insert the words:
provided that no advances under this Section shall be made in respect of any purpose which involves the use of forced labour.
This is a manuscript Amendment. The whole issue was raised on the Amendment we have just discussed and the hon. Baronet showed himself very considerate towards those behind him, but he completely ignored the similar point of view which I had ventured to put.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Oh, no.

Mr. MANDER: It was not done intentionally, I feel sure, but at the same time I would like him to assure us over here that he will do his best to find an Amendment which will meet our views.

Sir O. MOSLEY: I am very sorry that I did not allude specifically to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but it was a manuscript Amendment, and I had not a copy of it. I can assure him that in framing the Amendments which I have in view I will keep in mind the views which he shares with hon. Members behind me. I by no means meant to ignore the Liberal Benches; I was intending to refer to the speeches which have come from all sides, of the House.

Mr. MANDER: lam very much obliged to the hon. Baronet.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. MANDER: Yes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that any sums of money expended in the purchase of materials, machinery, or goods shall be spent upon goods manufactured or produced within the Empire.
This is a manuscript Amendment, and I am moving it in order to get a statement from the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill. One of the principal objects of this Measure is to help towards the solution of the unemployment problem in this country, and as this money is to be advanced at the expense of the British taxpayer I think it is desirable that it should be laid down in the Bill that the money should, as far as possible, be spent in the purchase of British made goods. If hon.
Members will look at the Bill they will find that that stipulation is nowhere included. The Chancellor of the Duchy may tell us that under the Bill the Treasury have power to insist upon that condition, but I suggest that it may possibly be a great convenience to the Treasury, and an assistance to the Government in trying to ensure that the maximum of orders under this Bill are placed in this country and other parts of the Empire, that this condition should be definitely laid down in the Bill. I am not in the least enamoured of these particular words; I have merely raised the point in a manuscript Amendment, because I think it is one which ought to be put forward, and if the Chancellor asks me to withdraw the Amendment I certainly will do so. But I would like to have an assurance from the Government as to what it is proposed to do in the matter, and to know whether they will consider the insertion of words to this effect on the Report stage. I am sure it is the intention and determination that this money should as far as possible be spent within the Empire to help our unemployed problem.

8.0 p.m.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The intention of the Noble Lord is very germane to the object which we have in mind, but I think the words which he has proposed are unnecessary, because there is a specific instruction to the committee which considers all these propositions that they should be calculated not only for developing the Colonies but also for promoting industry in the United Kingdom. The committee have also definite instructions to keep in mind the providing of employment in the United Kingdom. While they are not absolutely bound by the provisions of the Bill, they are very strictly instructed by the Bill, and they must always have as a primary consideration the carrying out of the objects of the Bill. If the Noble Lord can see his way to withdraw the Amendment, he may rest assured that his object is already achieved by the Bill.

Commander WILLIAMS: In passing a Bill of this kind, which in all probability will run on for a considerable number of years, there will arise difficulties in regard to individual contracts. Therefore, I think it is very important that we should lay down as clearly as possible on this
occasion that the materials and goads used should come from within the Empire, and Empire productions ought to be encouraged. I wonder if the Chancellor of the Duchy, between now and the Report stage, will be able to see his way to work out a form of words which will carry out what I am sure the Committee desires, namely, that practically no goods or materials should be used except those which are actually produced within the Empire. That is a reasonable request. We have been trying to make this a common consent Bill, and, if a provision of the nature I have described could be inserted, I am sure it would give us a very great deal of satisfaction.

Mr. SANDERS: I would like to repeat in this discussion the very sound maxim which was put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy, that you cannot include everything in one Bill. I am strongly in favour of all the expenditure under this Measure being made not only in the Empire but in the United Kingdom. That is what I should like to see, because primarily we want to help the unemployed workpeople in this country side by side and equally with promoting the development of the Colonies. I would not like the Committee which will be in charge of the administration of this Measure to be hampered by an Amendment to the effect that under no circumstances could any contract be given except to those who would give a, pledge that every item of material and every hour of labour used in its production should come from the United Kingdom. Just as we are on this side prepared to stay our hand in this respect as regards the United Kingdom, I think the other side might leave it to the good sense and patriotism of those who will have charge of these matters, and I do not think we ought to pass any proposals which would bind their hands in the way suggested. There might be a ease where it would be advantageous to buy or procure something from outside the British Empire as part of the scheme, and that scheme might be stopped altogether by an Amendment of this kind.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw by Amendment. I do so in view of what the Chancellor of the Duchy has said. I hope he will think the matter over again and consider whether it would not be of assistance to
the Government in carrying out their policy that it should in some way be clearly laid down that the goods will be British made as far as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 37 and 38.
The point of this Amendment is to make the Bill applicable to Iraq. As the Measure is now drawn, it is not applicable to Iraq, because the mandate which has been accepted by the Government in respect of Iraq is not being exercised. Therefore, unless these words are struck out, the Bill will not apply to Iraq. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government, because we all desire that the Bill should be applicable to Iraq, as well as to the territories in which we are exercising the mandate of the League of Nations. Under these circumstances, it seems absolutely necessary that the words should be struck out. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has considered these points, but I think he will agree with me that, unless these words are struck out, the Bill will not be applicable to Iraq, and we desire to make the Bill as wide as possible.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Iraq is excluded from the Bill, and the omission of the words, as suggested by the Amendment, would bring Iraq within its scope. May I point out that Iraq is not technically a mandate exercised by His Majesty.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But Transjordania is included.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Yes, Transjordania is included because the mandate there is being exercised by His Majesty.

Sir H. YOUNG: It seems to me that Iraq is a very favourable field for the application of this Bill. In the first place, there is great need in that country for the development of railways which would result in valuable orders coming to this country. The application of the provisions of this Bill to Iraq would tend to increase the productive power of that country. Then, again, there is the question of irrigation works which would be very much to the benefit of Iraq. In the third place, there is a much needed extension of the Iraq railways. It appears to me that the only reason why Iraq is not included is a mere technicality.
This omission may have taken place out of some special regard for susceptibilities, but I think they could be overcome by inserting some safeguard.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: After the discussion which has taken place I have concluded that this Amendment does not come within the terms of the Money Resolution, and, therefore, it is out of order.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Then any Amendment having for its object the inclusion of Iraq will be out of Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I must so rule, owing to the fact that the Financial Resolution is limited to mandated territories in respect of which His Majesty's Government are exercising a mandate.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out Subsection (11).
I move this Amendment more with the intention of getting an explanation on this point than with any desire to press the Amendment. Sub-section (11) reads as follows:
In this Section the expression 'colony' means a colony not possessing responsible Government.
I suggest to the Government that the expression "Not possessing responsible Government" is extraordinarily vague and unsatisfactory. The Lord Privy Seal, in the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolution, said the object was to exclude Southern Rhodesia. In the Easter Act, 1928, the following list is given of His Majesty's Dominions in which, it was then considered, His Majesty could not legislate by Order in Council: British India; the Dominion of Canada; the Commonwealth of Australia; the Dominion of New Zealand; the Union of South Africa; the Irish Free State; Newfoundland; Southern Rhodesia; Malta. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Duchy that it would be much more satisfactory, on the Report stage, to take this Sub-section out of the Bill, and attach to the Bill a Schedule stating those of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Measure will not apply.
I will give him a concrete instance. There is at the present moment the Colony of Ceylon. As I understand the
Constitution of Ceylon, it has not at the moment responsible Government, but, as the hon. Baronet knows, there is a suggestion now before the Ceylonese Government, based on the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee, which, if accepted, might produce something which would give responsible Government to Ceylon. If this Sub-section remains in the Bill, and Ceylon obtains what I believe might be held to be responsible Government, would it mean that, while Ceylon would be able to get loans under this Bill for one year or two years, yet, when that Colony attains responsible Government, it would then become excluded? I am not quite clear how far the Governments of the West Indies are regarded as responsible: I do not know whether they are or not; bus she question I want to ask is, what is the definition of "responsible government." because it is rather a vague expression? Does it mean a Government where the Crown has not the power of over-riding Bills, because, after all, that power is possessed by every Dominion or Colonial Government. Does it mean a Government in which one portion or certain portions of the legislature includes official members? After all, that is a condition which may change, and does change in different parts of the Dominions, and it might result in this very inconvenient position, that the Government of a Colony which at one moment has not responsible Government might in a few years' time become responsible, and it seems to me that, if that arises, at it has arisen in recent years with regard to Southern Rhodesia, it may have a great effect on the working of the Bill.
I suggest that it would bester conduce to smooth working if the Government would consider this point between now and the Report stage, and see if they cannot produce a Schedule of those Colonies to which this Measure will not apply, on the understanding that it will apply to all others. I do not at all like this expression "responsible government," because it is too vague to apply to the innumerable Governments that we have in the Empire. There is the case of British Guiana, which, I believe, has just had a new Constitution. I am not certain whether the new Constitution yet applies or not, but I am equally not certain whether it is not something very
near to responsible government. The old one was not. I remember that we had some discussion in the House on the subject. As I have said, I think that the phrase is too vague a one to use for an Empire such as ours, in which every form of government, from almost absolute autocracy to very wide representation, exists in the different Colonies, and that, if we are to exclude any Colonies from the operation of this Bill, it should be done by a Schedule showing which Colonies are not included, rather than by some vague phrase which may be applicable to-day but possibly not applicable to-morrow.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: ; I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, because the position is perfectly clear. A responsible Government is one which is responsible for paying its debts. The real point here is that this Bill applies, so far as we are concerned, to those Colonies whom we in this country can force to honour their obligations. We cannot force Australia to honour its obligations; we cannot force New Zealand; but we can force all those countries which have not responsible government. Directly they have responsible government, we cease to be able to coerce them. Southern Rhodesia, for instance, is excluded. Southern Rhodesia has responsible government, and the only matter in which we can interfere in Southern Rhodesia is that of native questions. If they refuse to pay their debts, we cannot coerce them.

Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this matter is very simple, but his definition does not enlighten us. He says that a responsible government means a government which cannot be made to pay its debts, and that Governments which can be made to pay their debts are Governments which are not responsible governments. I do not see how that helps us.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I did not mean to suggest that as a definition to be embodied in the Bill. The responsible governments are responsible for their own taxation, and the irresponsible ones, with whom we are dealing in this Bill, are those whose taxation is fixed by the House of Commons or by the Colonial Office. I object to the suggestion of a Schedule, because, as time goes on,
further Colonies may become responsible, and, directly they become responsible, they automatically cease to have rights under this Bill. It is only so far as we can be sure of our security that we ought to lend money in this way. I propose to raise this question on the next Amendment, relating to mandated territories, but I think that that is the point.

Sir O. MOSLEY: It is quite clear what Colonies are affected by this Sub-section. Only Southern Rhodesia and Malta are excluded by the term "responsible government." The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has been present to our minds. A situation may before long arise which would, under this definition, exclude Ceylon from the operation of the Bill. Whether the exclusion of Colonies owing to the development of responsible government is a more disadvantageous situation than their remaining on a permanent Schedule and subject to the conditions of the Bill long after they have attained responsible government, is a matter for consideration. Our purpose in this Sub-section was to place Colonies with responsible government in the same position as Dominions, that is to say, outside the purview of the Bill. They are really analogous to Dominions rather than to ordinary Colonies, as far as their financial arrangements are concerned, and it appears to me that the best definition available is the term "responsible government," which divides into two clear categories the Colonies with which we are dealing. It is perfectly certain that, as things are, only Malta and Southern Rhodesia are excluded. As to the Ceylon case, which may before very long arise, in my opinion it would rather vitiate the purpose of the Bill if, after achieving responsible government, Colonies still remained under a Schedule which made them susceptible to the Bill, but I will certainly give every consideration to the interesting point which the hon. and gallant Member has raised, and possibly, although I cannot give any undertaking to-day, we might discuss the matter on the Report stage.

Lord E. PERCY: Would the Chancellor of the Duchy consider this point? When a Colony attains responsible government, it is no longer able to go to the Treasury and ask for advances under this Measure;
but will the effect of retaining Subsection (11) as it stands be that a Colony which has secured grants covering the payment of interest on loans for 10 years, and which during the course of the 10 years gets responsible government, will then cease automatically to have any right thereafter to receive grants from the Colonial Development Fund? That would be a very queer result. Perhaps the hon. Baronet could say whether that is the actual effect?

Sir O. MOSLEY: That is not so much the difficulty with which I have to contend. Clearly, a Colony would have the right to assistance from the Development Fund up to the moment when it assumes responsible government. Clearly, it would not have a right to further assistance. The only point which, to be quite frank, is rather troubling me, is the control which the home Government would have over the money which it has advanced after the Colony becomes a responsible government. Suppose that the advance is made before the Colony becomes a responsible government. What control over the situation has the home Government after that? That is a material point into which I will look closely, but I do not think that the rights of the Colony are in any way adversely affected.

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Baronet is going to claim the right to say to the Colony when it attains self-government, "Any contract I had with you for the payment of interest on your loan is null and void," then I certainly think the Colony might very well reply, "In that case I shall not recognise any right of control by you over loans already made."

Sir O. MOSLEY: Surely if we said, when the Colony became a responsible government, "We will wipe out all the money you are owing us," the Colony would have no ground of complaint. It would be in a very good situation. But that is precisely the reverse of what I meant. I meant, "What security have we that the moment when the Colony becomes a responsible government is the moment when we lose the measure of control that we previously exercised?" I do not anticipate any very great trouble on the point. On the whole it might put us in a greater difficulty to put the Colonies
in a permanent Schedule, as is suggested, but I will give the matter close attention before the Report stage.

Dr. MORGAN: I think the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is the question of finance and taxation. It does not matter whether the Colony has responsible government or not in the ordinary case, from the point of view of a representative Government of fully elected members. Take the Island of Barbados. It is a Crown Colony. It has a fully elected representative Assembly, but still its finances are under the Colonial Governor, and they are responsible to the Colonial Office, which can still veto, through the Governor, any action of the elected representative Assembly. The important point is whether the Colony is responsible for its own finances or not. In the case of Barbados, it still has its finances under the control of the Governor and the Colonial Office. I hope the Government will stick to the Clause and not amend it in any way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after the word "colony," to insert the words "or mandated territory."
I want to apply to mandated territories precisely the same principle that we have applied to the Colonies That is to say, as long as the mandated territory has its taxation fixed ultimately by the Colonial Office, so long should it be entitled to get its loan, but directly a mandated territory gets responsible government and fixes its own Budget, that mandated territory also ought to cease to have any right to claim loans under this Bill. The Sub-section says:
In this section the expression 'Colony' means a Colony not possessing responsible Government.
That should be followed by something like this. "In this Section the expression 'mandated territory' means a territory not in the possession of responsible Government." I want to make certain that we do not leave the door open for a mandated territory, on becoming responsible, getting a loan.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The preceding Section says "The territories to which this
Section applies are territories in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted and is being exercised by His Majesty's Government." If a mandated territory has achieved responsible government, the mandate is not being exercised by His Majesty's Government, and that is why these words exclude Iraq, which has achieved a measure of responsible government. So I think the purpose my right hon. Friend seeks is really secured by these words, "is being exercised," in the previous Sub-section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lord E. PERCY: I should like to ask one or two questions about points I raised on the Second Reading, when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury promised that he would try to comfort me if I so desired. In the first place I want to ask a perfectly specific question on which there is a great deal of doubt on this side of the House. Is or is not any balance remaining from the Colonial Development Fund at the end of the year surrenderable to the Treasury? Then on the Second Reading I alleged that the Treasury occupied a position as a spending authority in relation to this Fund which it did not occupy in relation to any Government Department or any existing Government activities. The Chancellor of the Duchy, in a very fair retort, said that was not the case, and if I compared this Bill with the Act creating the Development Fund in 1909, I should find that that Act proceeded on precisely the same lines. It is quite true that the Act begins much in the same way as this Bill—"The Treasury may upon the recommendation of the Committee make advances," and so on. But what was the Development Fund? It was financed out of such moneys as may from time to time be provided by Parliament, but it was also financed by moneys completely outside any discretion of the Treasury. It was financed by funds issued automatically out of the Consolidated Fund, that is to say, a sum of £500,000 a year. Thirdly, the Development Fund received any funds received by the Treasury by way of interest on or repayment of any advance made by way of loans under this part of the Act.
Therefore, the United Kingdom Development Fund set up by the Act of 1909 received money from year to year. Parliament, looking ahead, provided that it should have a certain income in addition to any money that might be voted by Parliament from year to year, and the function of the Treasury was to decide how beat that money should be paid out of the Fund and what was the best objects on which it could be expended. But this Fund, while it receives any money that may be voted by Parliament year by year, has no income charged on the Consolidated Fund and it is specifically provided by Clause 1 (8) that any sums received by the Treasury by way of interest on or repayment of any advance shall be paid, not into the Fund but into the Exchequer. The relation between the Treasury and the Fund is really this, that the Fund will contain in any given year moneys voted by Parliament to the extent that the Treasury want to spend money in that year. In fact, the Government would estimate for their Colonial Development Fund the money which was necessary to make advances and to pay grants to which either the Government are already committed or to which the Government definitely know that they are going to commit themselves during the next few months. It is really not a fund at all. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his opening remarks yesterday, said that into this Fund was to be paid £1,000,000 a year. It is nothing of the sort. Into this Fund is going to be paid any money which the Treasury may recommend Parliament to vote, not exceeding £1,000,000. It is not a fund in any sense of the word. That is my criticism, and my questions are these: Is not my statement correct, and is there any precedent for the Treasury acting in this way as a spending Department, not in relation to a fund with an independent income, which income it has to spend, but in relation to a Department which has no money except what the Treasury may allow it to have from year to year? We ought to be perfectly clear on this point. The Committee know that I have not adopted a fractious attitude on this Bill at all; on the contrary. It is not a £1,000,000 a year development fund Bill. It is a Bill saying that the Treasury may from year to year, on the recommendation of the Committee, spend such sums
as it may recommend Parliament to vote to it under the Act. Is not that rather an unprecedented position for the Treasury to adopt?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The Noble Lord has put the case exceedingly fairly and in the main, on the facts which he has put forward, he is perfectly correct in his interpretation of the meaning of this Bill. The grant is not a fixed sum of £1,000,000; it is such sum as Parliament may determine. In that respect, it corresponds to the ordinary Estimates that are laid before the House. But the grant will be guaranteed in a technical sense in that any grant issued or unspent at the end of the year will not be surrendered to the Exchequer but carried forward to the Fund. The Treasury, however, retain the right to short issue a grant if it should appear that the amount likely to he spent in a year is less than the amount originally voted. That is a constitutional right of the Treasury.

Lord E. PERCY: Take the case of the Empire Marketing Board. Where Parliament has been asked to vote a certain sum to the Empire Marketing Board, has the Treasury the right to short issue the sum of money which Parliament has voted to that Board?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, the Empire Marketing Board Fund is on an entirely different footing. The Empire Marketing Board has a definite vote of £1,000,000 a year, and the Treasury has no right to short issue it. That is not on the same footing as a measure devoted to Empire development. It is not a clear million every year. It is such an amount—not more than £1,000,000—as Parliament shall determine, but, if the amount of the Estimate is not wholly spent, the balance will not be surrendered, but will go into the Fund.

Lord E. PERCY: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that if the Treasury short issue in any one year the amount by which it is short issued will still remain in the Fund?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. There are three points. In the first place, it is not £1,000,000 but such sum as
shall be determined. If a certain amount has been estimated, and the Treasury do not short issue, and there is a balance, that balance will not be surrendered. But the Treasury can short issue., and in that case the balance will not be so large. I hope that I have made the matter clear.

Lord E. PERCY: A balance is hardly likely to occur.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not likely to be very large, but, if there is a balance, it will not be surrendered. I now come to the next point which was made by the Noble Lord, that this turns the Treasury into a spending Department. I do not know whither he has misstated the facts, but I think his description of the facts is incorrect. I do not admit for a moment that this makes the Treasury a spending Department. It places the Treasury with regard to this Colonial development on the same footing as the Treasury with regard to the ordinary spending Departments of this country. They present a Estimate. The Treasury exercises a supervision over these Estimates, and technically the Treasury comes to Parliament to ask for the money. In this case, the Committee, together with the Colonial Office, decide upon certain schemes. They have to get Treasury sanction. When Treasury sanction is given to these schemes, the money is asked for from Parliament, and, if the Estimate is agreed to, the money is voted. The Noble Lord is perfectly right in thinking that this is on a different basis from the Empire Marketing Board £1,000,000. It is quite different from that. But I do not think that he is right in thinking that it makes the Treasury a spending Department any more than the Treasury is a spending Department with regard to any of the Estimates which are carried through this House every year. It places the money on precisely the same footing.

Lord E. PERCY: I grant that it will depend to a certain extent upon the Government Department which has its Estimates passed by Parliament. The Treasury has no power to say to a Government Department, "You shall not spend the money Parliament has voted to you under the various heads mentioned," unless the Treasury remains responsible for spending or not spending the money which Parliament has voted.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Was not the Noble Lord present when the Lord Privy Seal explained the difference between this Fund and previous funds? The object of this Fund is ostensibly to provide employment, and if the Fund remains, as the Noble Lord suggested, only partially expended in one year, the balance will be handed over to the next year. Otherwise it might have a tendency to hold up for next year, or the year after, or some future year work which might be put in hand immediately. The Lord Privy Seal explained that that was definitely provided for in the Bill to which he referred. If the Noble Lord had read that statement, he would not have made the, remarks which he has just made.

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps the hon. Member was not here on the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Lord E. PERCY: I did hear the Lord Privy Seal make that statement, but he has made a totally different statement. He has said that the Government intended to set up a Colonial Development Fund, to which £1,000,000 would be voted, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to raid it. "What I want to know is, which of the two statements remains the policy of the Government?

Mr. DENMAN: In the Bill, as it stands, the process appears to be perfectly clear. Parliament begins by providing an amount not exceeding £1,000,000. Then, under Sub-section (4), Treasury control comes in:
All sums issued on account of moneys provided by Parliament under this section shall be paid into a fund to be called 'The Colonial Development Fund'" …
I understand from the Noble Lord and the Financial Secretary that it is intended that the Treasury shall issue to the Colonial Development Fund less than Parliament votes. If the sum issued docs not amount to less than Parliament votes, then I am correct in contradicting the Noble Lord. If Parliament votes money and that money is transferred to the Colonial Development Fund, no power can take it out of that Fund, except it is to be spent on objects provided by the Act. When it is once there, it is safe.

Lord E. PERCY: When the Treasury is kind enough to pay it in, certainly.

Mr. DENMAN: If the Financial Secretary tells me that the Treasury will not pay into the Colonial Development Fund an amount less than Parliament votes, it is essential that we should know that. If we vote a definite sum of money, we ought to be sure that the Treasury will, in the course of that year, pay that amount into the Development Fund. If we are not told that, then we do not know where we stand, and how much money we are going to spend. Moreover, under Sub-section (7), the Treasury has power to invest any moneys standing to the credit of the Colonial Development Fund in any Government securities. Therefore, if we vote £800,000 and it goes to the Fund and is not all spent, we shall be earning a little interest for the Fund; but if, on the other hand, the Treasury is to short issue, then the Sub-section will never effectively come into operation. I hope the Financial Secretary will give us an assurance that, whatever may be the language of the Act, the Treasury will pay into the Development Fund the sums which we vote.

Sir H. YOUNG: I confess to some sense of disappointment as to the way in which the Fund will work out, according to the statement of the Financial Secretary. We received the impression that this was to be a true grant-in-aid, and that we were to vote a sum, not necessarily £1,000,000 every year, to the Colonial Development Fund. We are, I gather, to be slightly disappointed in that regard, because it is not to be a Vote to' the Fund, but a Vote for the specific purposes for which the Fund is to be employed. Therefore, unless these specific purposes can be fully advanced in the year, there may be a short issue. That takes the gilt off the gingerbread from the point of view of the possibilities of the future development of the Fund. It may be that, in practice, owing to the grants being made in the form of block grants to Colonial Governments, that there will be no difficulty in actually making the full expenditure in every year. That is what we trust the administration will do. I do, however, want to feel more happy about the rotundity of the scheme. If it were to be couched in the common form of the
annual accounts it should be a grant to the Fund, and should not be limited in a given year to the specific purposes for which the Fund is to be employed. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give some consideration of that point. That procedure might be adopted by the Treasury under the wording of the Clause. If it is impossible to adopt a more generous procedure in the wording of the Clause, possibly it may be thought advisable to give some reconsideration to the Clause on Report.
The only other point which seemed to me appropriate to raise, is to ask whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has been able to give any consideration to the suggestion made during the previous stages of the Bill that it might be better to divide the maximum sum of £1,000,000, and allocate it definitely between the two very different purposes for which the Bill provides. A sign of the hasty preparation of the Bill is the way in which it lumps together the provision of financial assistance for objects which are not revenue earning, such as scientific research, which must be specifically by grants, and assistance to other objects which may be revenue earning, such as transport, whether by grants or by loan. This money will have to be administered by different organisations, and they will have no practical way of coming together, co-ordinating their policy and deciding how much money is to be given to each. Therefore, what one must be afraid of is a sort of dog fight between the two interests, which will be decided by no principles of administration but by the activities of the leaders on the two sides. To provide against that, would it not be much better to divide the £1,000,000 between the two specific purposes, either in the Act itself or in the annual Votes of Parliament?

Sir O. MOSLEY: I agree with the hon. Baronet that it would be better to divide the research and the development side, but the best time to do that would be at the moment when we dovetail together the machinery of the Empire Marketing Board and the machinery of the present Bill. Admittedly, the present proposals constitute an interim arrangement. The Lord Privy Seal stated that at a later stage we shall have to amalgamate or
dovetail together the machinery of the Empire Marketing Board and the present Bill. The Empire Marketing Board is almost wholly concerned with research matters, and when we dovetail the two pieces of machinery together, it should be possible to divide the research from the development aspect, in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet. Any division which it may be advisable to make, should be made not under the present Bill but under the subsequent Measure.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Duchy, but I must ask him a definite question. Are we to understand that it is the intention in the future to introduce legislation to coordinate the organisation of the Empire Marketing Board with that which is now being erected?

Sir O. MOSLEY: Most certainly. That was the specific statement of the Lord Privy Seal.

Lord E. PERCY: There is one further point which I should like to raise. There is no reason why, if you have a Fund like the Empire Marketing Board Fund, to which £1,000,000 a year can be voted, that you should in any given year come to Parliament for the full million. For two or three years the late Government did not ask Parliament for the full £1,000,000 for the Board, or the understanding that the Board would have a claim on that money in future years. It is perfectly possible to follow the same procedure in regard to colonial development. That course is not being taken; and the only explanation is that the Treasury definitely mean to use its power of short issue and definitely intend that in ordinary circumstances no balances shall be carried forward from one year to another. I do not want to catch the Government out at all; I just want to find exactly what is the intention. And the intention of the Treasury is that there shall not be carried forward any balances from one year to another.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The intention is to give greater control to the Treasury over this expenditure; and as it is expenditure in some remote parts of the world there is a need for somewhat greater control. It also gives greater security to the taxpayers of this country if the Treasury is given this control.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I shall be obliged if the Chancellor of the Duchy will give me an answer to one aspect of the question which has not yet been raised. This Clause, which is really the operative Clause of the Bill, says that the Treasury may make advances for the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture and industry in the Colony. I like the order in which these two words are placed—agriculture and industry; agriculture is given priority. That is not quite the order in which we have been accustomed to consider industry and agriculture in this country in the past. The question I want to ask is this, that in so far as the agricultural development of a colony may succeed will it not have an inevitable reaction on employment in this country? This Bill is to fulfil two definite purposes. The first is to bring a measure of relief in connection with unemployment in this country; and this is to be achieved by an extension of agriculture and industry in our Colonies and Dependencies. Supposing it is successful, as everyone desires, will not this be the result, that for every two men of the native community who find increased employment in the Colonies in agriculture owing to the effect of this Bill you may put out of work at least one agricultural labourer in this country? The markets of this country are the Mecca of the world. They all send their agricultural products to this country; and we still have several hundred thousands of agricultural workers. I want to ask what measures the Government have taken to safeguard the position of the British agricultural worker and prevent him being displaced from his labour if the project of this Bill becomes a success? Can the Chancellor of the Duchy tell me what plans the Government have in mind to counteract the possible effect on agricultural labour in this country which a success of this Bill must inevitably entail?

Sir O. MOSLEY: The hon. and gallant Member has introduced what might become a very extensive argument into the discussion of this Clause. The economic argument he has advanced, like many other arguments, may be answered by pushing it to its logical extreme; and if the hon. and gallant Member's argument was taken to the extreme then all colonial development would be damaging to this country; the
opening up of any great new food-producing country would be fatal to the health and well-being of these islands. One only has to state the argument in that extreme form to see the danger into which we fall that in taking the narrow view of trying to preserve employment in this country we try to stop developments in other countries. In point of concrete fact the products of these tropical areas will not in very many cases conflict with the products of these islands. They will be sending in many cases the raw material of our industries, and in other cases fruits and products which we cannot produce. The fact of their sending them to this country and finding a market here will enrich them to the extent that they will become yet larger markets for the goods which we send to them. Develop their agriculture, give them prosperity, give them an outlet in the British market, and then they are rich enough to take the products of our great industries in return. That is the process of world trade which has been built up, and to that process we hope to give a substantial fillip by this Bill when it is in operation.

9.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I am entirely in favour of colonial development. That goes without saying, and the argument of the Chancellor of the Duchy is perfectly right so far as increasing the prosperity and purchasing power of the people in the colonies. My point is this, that it is all right so long as that money is expended in this country in our industries but that when you get an extension of agriculture in a colony it might conflict directly with one of the largest industries in this country.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Appointment of committee, and expenses.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out from the word "Colonies" to the end of the subsection.
This is going to be a very important Committee and a very important part of the machinery of this Bill, and to make every appointment subject to the approval of the Treasury is going a little too far. If the clause provided that the
Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies after consultation with the Treasury I should have nothing to say about it. The Committee is to undertake the various duties which are mentioned in the Bill. In the first place, it applies to agriculture. Then to the improvement of internal transport and communications; to the construction and improvement of harbours; to the development and improvement I of fisheries; to forestry; to land drainage; to the promotion and discovery of water supplies and the development of water power; to the development of mineral resources; to electricity—which we inserted this afternoon—to the promotion of scientific research instruction and experiments in the science, methods and practice of agriculture and industry, the organisation of co-operation and instruction in the growing and marketing of produce; and to another object inserted by the Chancellor of the Duchy this afternoon; health. If the Committee is to deal really adequately with all these subjects it must contain representatives not only of the business and financial world, whose advice on subjects like transport and the construction of harbours will be most valuable, but at least one representative who is skilled in tropical medicine and another who is an expert on tropical agriculture.
I very much doubt whether the Treasury is really the best body to decide who are the people to compose this Committee. The Treasury is interested in the financial objects, but its business, after all, is strictly limited. I doubt whether it is the best judge in advising whether any scheme for scientific research is one on which the Committee should make a recommendation or not. These matters are difficult and very technical. There has been a very great and very important discovery in a matter which I think might come under the Bill, namely, the importation of apples. If an appliance with a mesh larger than a certain size is used you get rid of one sort of parasite in the packages but enable another parasite to get into the apples and injure them in transport. There are other bodies which really have better knowledge of the qualifications of members of such a committee than the Treasury can possibly possess. I should be willing to leave the appointment of this committee in the hands of
the Secretary of State, who draws advice from many quarters which are more in touch with some of the objects of the Bill than the Treasury can be.
But if it is thought desirable that the Treasury should have a word to say on the subject, I suggest that the words "after consultation with" would be better than "subject to the approval of." Another important point on which a concession has been made to-day relates to health. That calls for someone who is an expert in tropical medicine. The number of people who really understand tropical medicine is not very large, and I doubt whether the Treasury are the best people to say which of the few gentlemen in this country who really understand tropical diseases are the most suitable men to put on the committee. To require that every appointment shall be subject to the consent of the Treasury is going rather further than is absolutely necessary to meet the necessities of the case.

Commander WILLIAMS: I wish to support the Amendment. I am certain that, on the whole, it is essential that we should leave Treasury control as such over the financial proceedings under the Bill. Our object in bringing forward the Amendment is to make it clear that: the appointment of this committee is a matter in which the knowledge and the authority of the Secretary of State and his Department should be the controlling influence, subject, of course, to the usual limitation on expenditure such as the Treasury will lay down. We do not wish to handicap the Treasury in knowing exactly what is going on in regard to finance, but from the point of view of collecting the best people to serve on the committee we are certain that it is essential that the controlling factor in the appointments should be with the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Sir O. MOSLEY: It is not really a very big difference which divides us. I understand that the hon. and gallant Members would be quite content if we put in the words "after consultation with" instead of "subject to the approval of" the Treasury. I do not think the change would make the least difference, because if the Treasury in consultation did object, in actual fact it would have about the same power of veto as that possessed
under the Clause. Of course the Treasury does come into all these things. For my part, with a very short experience of office, I am not quite as alarmed about the Treasury bogey as hon. Members opposite are after their much longer experience. As I said yesterday, on the attitude of the Governmment of the day depends very much the attitude of the Treasury. In a matter like this, where you are dealing with quite an extraordinary number of subjects, is not the body of civil servants which you wish to associate with the Development Fund, that body which in the natural course of its work covers a far greater range of subjects than any other Department, and which incidentally attracts to its service individuals of quite extraordinary ability? I would like to mobilise the Treasury for these great development works. If we can get the Treasury in on this kind of thing, we get the extraordinary experience of the Treasury behind the project. In that case I have considerable hopes of rapid development. I may be optimistic, but so far I have experienced nothing but great help from Treasury officials in this kind of work.

Captain BOURNE: I quite agree with the hon. Baronet, but my view was that certain of the people on this new committee would require qualifications which are slightly outside the field of the ordinary Treasury official. I am not for a moment criticising the desirability of getting the Treasury into this work, or the enormous knowledge and experience that the Treasury has, but you are to have a committee which is dealing with widely different subjects, some of which are by no means well known to the average citizen or the average civil servant. It is only for that reason that I thought consultation with the Treasury would be better than giving the Treasury power of absolute veto on such an obscure thing, say, as tropical medicine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
and shall include two representatives appointed to represent the interests of the native population.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that not only shall the Treasury point
of view, the business man's point of view and the point of view of colonial development be represented on the committee, but that, in addition, there should be two persons specially charged with the task of looking after every project from the standpoint of its effect upon the native population. It is not suggested that the individuals to be appointed should be members of the native population because that would be impracticable. It is suggested, however, that there are men whose names are well known in this country for their interest in the native population, who would be willing to give their services in this way and whose presence on the committee would afford some guarantee that the point of view of the native population—or if the Noble Lord opposite prefers it, the indigenous African population—shall be adequately taken into account in considering proposals for advances or loans under this Clause.

Sir O. MOSLEY: Apart from other difficulties which this Amendment might present, there is one which immediately suggests itself. There would, I suppose, be at least a score of different native interests—sometimes conflicting—concerned and it would be exceedingly difficult to decide exactly what interests should be represented or even to decide as to the representatives likely to be acceptable to all of them. There is that rather big administrative difficulty, but I would also suggest that it is not so much on this committee, which is concerned with advising on business propositions, that you want native representation, as on the other side—on the spot, advising and assisting the Colonial Government in the actual application of the money which is received. That, again, is a matter of Colonial Office administration which can and no doubt will be pressed on the Colonial Office by my hon. Friend and others. Not in the least do we wish to exclude full representation for the indigenous native population from the Bill or from any of these activities, but, on a sheer question of machinery, and in view of the purposes for which this committee will be set up, it seems inappropriate that this Amendment should be accepted, and I hope very much that, on this explanation, my hon. Friend may see his way to withdraw it.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: If I am to understand that the Colonial Office will use its good offices with the Governments of the Colonies which receive advances or loans under this Clause, in favour of associating with the administration of those loans persons who represent the native point of view, that will largely meet the purpose of my Amendment.

Mr. T. LEWIS: Precisely what are the duties of the Committee? I have been looking into the Bill very carefully indeed and it is difficult to find what exactly are its functions.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The duties of the Committee are set out in Clause 1. Subsection (1) states that the Treasury with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and
On the recommendation of the Committee to be appointed," etc.
may make advances. This committee in fact is to be the initiator of all the activities described in Clause 1. It is on the recommendation of the committee that all these projects may be undertaken and if my hon. Friend reads through Clause 1 he will be reading the prospective activities of the Committee. In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) the whole object of Labour Colonial administration must be increasingly to associate with Colonial administration the native population—an object which will command very wide assent even outside the ranks of our party.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to extend Colonial Stock Acts to stock of territories under His Majesty's protection and of certain mandated territories.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. SMITHERS: I wish to offer some remarks on this Clause in order to make quite sure that the Committee realise all that it implies. The Clause means that certain stocks shall come under the Trustee Act, so that trustees who wish to do so will be able to invest trust money
in those stocks. The Clause refers to the Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 to 1900. I have been at some trouble to look up those Acts and I wish to quote the opening sentence of Clause 2 of the Colonial Stock Act of 1900.
Securities in which a trustee may invest under the powers of the Trustee Act shall include" etc.
I hope the hon. Baronet will believe that I am trying to contribute a substantial point to this discussion. This country, by allowing its credit to be used for the development of the Empire, has contributed greatly to the development of a great part of the world. Our Dominions and Colonies have been developed roughly on a 4 per cent. or 4½ per cent. basis up to the War. Speaking in a strictly economic sense and putting aside all questions of sentiment it is also true to say that countries like the Argentine, Chile and others have paid us 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. more for the development of their countries on the credit which we advanced to them, because their stocks did not come under the Trustee Act while those of our Dominions did. I speak here as a member of the Stock Exchange and I wish quite frankly to say in passing that there is no standard of honour higher anywhere in the world than that of the Stock Exchange.
If we admit stocks to the Trustee List, thus placing them in the category of stocks in which a trustee may recommend investment, there may come along some old lady or some dependants who have a little money and who wish to put it into a trustee investment. They will find these stocks in the list of those in which trustees may invest. It will give those stocks a kind of glamour to have the status of British credit behind them and I would point out to the Government that there is a great responsibility in putting any stock upon this list. It is now proposed to include in this list the stocks of mandated territories or territories over which His Majesty's Government exercise a mandate under an order of the League of Nations. May I put this question to the Government? Supposing a small investor invests his or her all in a stock which comes under the Trustee Act, believing the credit of the British Government to be behind that stock, and supposing that for some reason or other, the mandate of the British Government
ends or the British Government ceases to have control over the territory, will any loan issued under the Clause we are discussing have the guarantee of the British Government after the mandate or responsibility of the British Government comes to an end and will that stock still be a trustee security? The point is that if a mandate comes to an end or the British Government's responsibility ceases and the credit of that particular stock goes down because the British Government have no more to do with it, what will happen to those people who have already invested money in that particular stock? We have in the Stock Exchange a very long official list of trustee securities, and it is a very great privilege to get on that list, because it enables borrowers to borrow at a much lower rate. I do not press for an answer now, but I would like to have an assurance between now and the Report stage that the hon. Baronet will consider the inner workings of the list and will see that, in justice to those people who invest in these stocks, they cannot be in any way misled because the British Government have given a guarantee which, after the mandate or control of any particular mandated territory comes to an end, may cease. It is to avoid this possibility that I am bringing the matter to the notice of the Government.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The hon. Member has raised a very interesting and important point. Of course, the granting of this great privilege of becoming a trustee security does carry with it great obligations on the Government to see that the privilege that is accorded can never become the subject of abuse. To that end the most careful machinery is devised. It is not by any means an automatic procedure that, directly this Bill is passed into law, every Mandated Territory or Protectorate is susceptible to the provisions of the Bill and made a trustee security. If the hon. Member carefully reads the wording of the Clause—

Mr. SMITHERS: I have read it very carefully. I do not want to press for a reply now, but it is so important to small investors that I ask the Government to bear it in mind and to make quite sure that the machinery is water-tight.

Sir O. MOSLEY: There is the most careful machinery and Treasury scrutiny before any recommendation is made for
an order to be exercised. There is also a provision for allowing an order to lie on the table of the House for 20 days, and it is subject to debate after the Treasury scrutiny has been made. In exercising these powers and in making these recommendations, the Treasury would, of course, have in view the posibility of any Mandated Territory ceasing to be a mandate of this country, and they would, in making any recommendations, exercise the very greatest caution in that respect. For those reasons, it may well be that certain territories which would normally enjoy this privilege will not be recommended as trustee securities, but, even if we set aside the Mandated Territories where that situation may arise, and recommendations will not be made, then there is a tremendous scope under the Clause for the inclusion of perfectly good securities as trustee securities. For instance, there is the Federated Malay States—a very good and admirable subject for a trustee security, and in some ways rather a better security than many other trustee securities—and it will be open to them to enjoy the advantage of these amenities, when the Treasury recommendation is made, and after all the machinery has been set in working. The point the hon. Member has raised is very present to the mind of the Government, and will certainly be present to the minds of those who make the recommendations to set the machinery in motion.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of 16 and 17 Geo. 5. c. 62.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after the word "Act," to insert the words "by the Government of Palestine and."
I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take this and the subsequent Amendment—in page 4, line 40, at the beginning, to insert the words:
in respect of any loan raised by the Government of Palestine there were included under each of the heads 1, 3, and 4 in the First Schedule to the said Act, and as regards any loan raised by the Governments of Kenya, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, or Tanganyika.
which stands in my name simultaneously, because the second one is really consequential on the first. I only put it down in this form to meet the exigencies of
drafting. I put down this Amendment to include Palestine, partly because in a reply yesterday the Chancellor of the Duchy made the suggestion that Palestine had in fact exhausted her credit under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, and it is on that point that I wish to ask a few questions. I have omitted from my Amendment any question of the purchase of railways and other capital undertakings by the Government, for which, under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, £1,000,000 was provided. I have concluded that such transactions have been carried out in the two years that have since elapsed. There were items for railways £1,640,000, harbour construction and port improvements £1,115,000, and Public Works, Telegraphs, etc., £745,000. I really put down the Amendment in order to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy whether all that money has been either spent or contracts entered into for its expenditure. If it has all been expended or contracts have been entered into for its expenditure, my Amendment has, of course, no further point. If, on the contrary, there is any substantial balance outstanding under any of these heads, I should like to know why the Government consider that Palestine should be excluded while other territories included under the Act of 1926 are to get the benefit under the new Bill. I put the Amendment down to ask for information and will content myself by moving it.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The Amendment as it stands on the Paper would not achieve the purpose the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, as it would have to be retrospective to affect the situation. The answer I gave last night was substantially correct. The power to borrow has been exhausted by Palestine. Therefore, as the words of the Bill contain the expression "after the commencement of this Act," a further Amendment would have to be made to make the Bill retrospective in respect of what Palestine has done. I think, on consideration of the position, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not desire to press his Amendment, for there is no very substantial advantage to be derived by Palestine from the application of these provisions. In the first place, having raised the money, it is difficult to alter the period of repayment from
40 to 60 years. Obviously, that would not operate to the advantage of Palestine; while, as to the provision to allow the addition of interest to capital over a period of years, that is met in this way. Most of the money, I understand, has already been expended, and the money which has not been spent is at the moment invested and is earning interest, so that no very great advantage would accrue from the application of this Clause of the Bill to Palestine. I trust, in view of that explanation, that the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment; but if the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has any point that he wishes to raise, I shall be delighted to answer it if I can.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Yesterday I had the opportunity of conferring with the hon. Baronet, and I gathered that the position is this, that the Palestine loan authorised under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act has been issued to and subscribed by the public, and, therefore, there can be no question of extending the period of repayment from 40 to 60 years, as already obligations have been entered into to the persons who have subscribed the loan and who hold the bonds, which must be fulfilled. The other point, in regard to the payment of interest out of capital, might be of some advantage to Palestine. I do not think the hon. Baronet is quite correct in saying that the greater part of the money has been expended. A sum of £1,000,000 was handed over to the British Treasury in repayment for certain assets left behind by the British Army after the War, and some expenditure has taken place on railways and other objects, but the great bulk of the £4,000,000 odd—nearly £3,000,000—is still unexpended and is, as the hon. Baronet said, earning interest. It might be an advantage that when this money is being spent on harbours, railways, and other purposes interest should be added to capital instead of revenues being required to pay them, but I am informed that there is no great desire on the part of the Palestine Government that that should be done. Revenues are amply sufficient to provide the interest needed, and, therefore, I do not press the hon. Baronet to accept an Amendment covering that point.
I would ask him, however, to clear up one matter which was left in doubt yesterday, of a slightly diverse character. Does the Bill generally include Transjordan or not? The Under-Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, said it was excluded from the whole Measure. I raised the point yesterday and suggested that, as I read the Bill, Transjordan was not excluded, and that possibly some portions of these moneys might be expended with advantage in the development of that very backward territory. Perhaps the hon. Baronet will inform me on that point.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Tiansjordan is included in the Bill. The statement of my hon. Friend yesterday was due to a misunderstanding, but Transjordan is clearly included. As to the amount of actual expenditure, out of £4,497,375 issued in the Palestine Loan, I am advised that £2,859,223 was actually expended up to 31st July, 1928, and that the revised amount allocated to Haifa Harbour was £1,250,000. That accounts for the great bulk of the money. My right hon. Friend will see that in the present situation there would not be any very material advantage, as he has said, in extending the provisions of this Bill to Palestine.

Major GLYN: Do I understand that under this Bill the Government would be able to finance schemes which have been considered for a large number of years for the procuring of certain salts from the Dead Sea I know that application was made to the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), when, in the previous Labour Administration, he was Colonial Secretary, and that ever since that time various applicants have attempted to get a concession to obtain these salts, which I understand would bring in considerable revenue. The matter has ben held up for five years, and now it is being taken to The Hague Court to say that under the previous Turkish concession the British Government have no power to grant this concession of the Dead Sea salts to anybody.

Sir O. MOSLEY: This question does not arise under Clause 4.

Major GLYN: I think it does arise.

Sir O. MOSLEY: It does not arise, in this way, that under Clause 4 we have no power to relate it to Palestine. It is under other Clauses that we have that power.

Captain BOURNE: Before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, I want to explain that I realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy was giving his answer yesterday rather hastily and under great pressure, and I thought the situation as regarded Palestine wanted further elucidation. It was only for that reason that I put down my Amendment, and, after the reply given by the hon. Baronet, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Sir O. MOSLEY: The statement that I made, that Palestine had exhausted her power to borrow, was correct.

Captain BOURNE: I did not wish at all to insinuate that it was not correct, but I wanted to make clear what the situation was.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (REVISION OF CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I understand that there has been expressed the view that it would be for the convenience of the House, owing to the Debate which has already taken place, that a further discussion of the Bill should be deferred to a later stage. If that be the general feeling of the House, I am only too happy to agree. All that I need say now, therefore, is that the Bill contains nothing more than was contained in the Money Resolution which was before the House two days ago. The only point
to which I need refer is the fact that Clause 1 of the Bill does give a certain protection. I understand that some little doubt was felt as to whether the provisions of the Act of 1924, with regard to the division of the subsidy, were being in any way revised. I referred to it when we were in Committee on the Money Resolution, and the situation is that Clause 1 of the Bill definitely preserves that provision of the 1924 Act, under which the division of the subsidy will take place after the 1st October this year as was originally provided. That, in view of what I said on Tuesday is all that I need say on this stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise only to say, on behalf of those for whom I speak, that we confirm the arrangement for the general convenience of the House to postpone the discussion on this Measure until the Third reading, which I understand will take place on Monday next.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CONTINENTAL AND INDIA AND EASTERN MAILS CONTRACT.

Resolved,
That the Contract, dated the 7th day of May, 1929, between the Postmaster-General and the Southern Railway Company, for the conveyance between England and France of outward Continental Mails, and both outward and inward India and Eastern Mails, be approved."—[Mr. Lees-Smith.]

The remaining Orders were read, und postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Ten o'Clock.